WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 05 Apr 2025, 12:29

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2003, 19:29 
Offline

Joined: 30 Mar 2003, 11:46
Posts: 48
LoL. 1st of all i know nobody hates me...i'm just in a board where nobody shares my opinion, i was trying to make a joke...<img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>

poke, i think you missed my point. This was just one example, which is not even well thought out, nor was it ment to be. I just never saw a serious proposal of a larger UN-Peacekeeping Force in Iraq, and i was trying to imply that what i stated was far too simplistic, and maybe not practicable, that's why i mentioned that nobody else came up with that.
If a similar proposal would have been conceded, those constituents you mentioned were more likely to join a more mutual force. These nations disaprove the apparant 'unilateral' path of the US and would like to see more UN action. I don't base that on any article, but on my personal experience and impression i have from living there.
It would be a lot harder for those governments to say 'no' to a UN-action, than to a US-action. I know... it would technically be UN-approved and supported if these nations voted in favor, but they still have this picture engrained, where the US 'bully' does business with all it's little quasi-sheep. That's not my opinion, but how many people there feel about it. If it was in fact UN-Troops, i believe the opinion would have been a lot more positive. Again this is just a sketchy example.I'm sure there are better and more detailed proposals out there. All I'm saying in this post is just my opinion, and really doesn't involve any statistics,numbers or facts, i'd need to back up...(if not, correct me, and state whats wrong, please.).
Most articles are just another opinion...However i get most of my background info, facts and back-up from sites like fas.org, globalsecurity.org, christiansciencemonitor.org, and other stuff i find on the net or whatever is handed to me from the highschool-debate-league. I know i might sometimes seem childish and naive (i guess i'm somewhat younger and less experienced than most of you lol),
but i usually build my opinion on bacground info, thats why i seldom cite sources or back it up with info...point out specific arguments, if you dont agree or if something is just wrong. That might very well be the case. I hope i got some things streight again,

Freak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2003, 19:51 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2002, 17:29
Posts: 361
Freak, I don't think you understand what the UN is. You seem to be saying that the other countries would be more supportive of us if they supported us more. But they don't support us. So, what's your point? We tried to get their support. We tried to get the UN involved, but they flat out refused. The last proposal we gave to the UN, the French refused it before we even finished writing it! What are we supposed to do? It's not like everyone (or anyone) supporting Pres Bush's decisions really WANTS us to be at war without the world's support, but other countries weren't willing to make a move.

What I'm trying to tell you about backing up your facts is that if you state an opinion and present it as fact, you are making an irrational arguement. I would have thought you would be familiar with that, being in debate. If you give a quantifier, such as most, all, many, usually, etc, it needs to be backed up or I probably won't believe your argument if it contradicts what I have already taken to be true. If I don't believe the validity of what you're trying to say, your point gets lost. When you wrote that lots of refugees were coming back into Iraq to fight and you saw that as a significant problem to our forces and our goals, it contradicted what I understood to be true, that no significant number of refugees were returning. Therefore, the point you were trying to make, which was valid, was lost because the reasoning behind it wasn't sound in my mind.

"See that green switch? Flip it down."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2003, 20:47 
Offline
Warthog VFW
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2002, 14:02
Posts: 6162
Location: IL
FREAK,
LISTEN TO THESE FOLKS,LUKE,POKE,SNIPER,A-10 STRESS.

IT COMES DOWN TO IN MY MIND THIS "ONE WORLDISM" CRAP!!OR "NEW WORLD ORDER"THERE TEACHING KIDS TODAY.

THE FRENCH AND GERMANS ALONG WITH THE RUSSIANS DIDNT WANT THE WAR BECAUSE OF THEIR"MONEY MAKING CONTRACTS" WITH THE SADDAM GOV.
SO IS THIS WAR ABOUT OIL?NO FROM THE US SIDE,BUT AS FAR AS THE 3 "PEACE LOVERS" IT IS ABOUT OIL AND MONEY,THEIR MONEY.

I'M GLAD THE US WITH A FEW ARE GOING IT ALONE WITHOUT THE "UN". WE DONT NEED OUR TROOPS HAVING SOME IDIOIT FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY MAKING DESECIONS THAT GET THEM KILLED.
I SAY WE PULL OUT OF THE UN,WE SURE DONT NEED THEM

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2003, 21:46 
Offline

Joined: 30 Mar 2003, 11:46
Posts: 48
Poke, what i'm trying to say is they would support us, if it wasn't only us. i know it's a paradox, but if it was a UN operation, the other members would feel like a part of it, otherwise it's almost like the US begging for support. These members apparantly don't want to support a US-Lead efford and just be the 'support' (for a good reason).But i THINK they would support it, if it was the UN acting, which they are a part of.
Concerning my sources...yes, i should have named them when i brought the refugee example. I saw it on spanish satelite TV (spanish is like my second mother-language after german). I think the spanish TV is the most 'neutral', they don't wan't to go against their government, but yet they are sceptic. In my opinion it's like the median between american and german news agencies, so in my oppinions its a good source.

"THE FRENCH AND GERMANS ALONG WITH THE RUSSIANS DIDNT WANT THE WAR BECAUSE OF THEIR"MONEY MAKING CONTRACTS" WITH THE SADDAM GOV."

You have to show me a source for that one! That realy doesnt sound very credible. I'ver heard about shipments from companies, but that was beyong gvt. control, and at least in the german case, the businesses got or will be fined-or worse. The reason Germany is against the war is quite simply that the majority of the people oppose it, and the courent gvt is just 'sitting off' the remaining years of the election cycle. They need all the public support they can get, b/c they screwed the economy over.
And i think the french are just to proud lol


Freak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2003, 22:19 
Offline

Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 22:16
Posts: 37
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You have to show me a source for that one!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Couple of examples, this stuff has been all over the news you should be able to find more...

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030314-095811-8865r

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003120439,00.html

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,438836,00.html

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 10:02 
Just out of curiosity, where do you suppose the Iraqi's got the Kornet heavy ATGM's they used to whack our Abrams tanks?

They certainly didn't make them themselves...

"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 10:48 
Offline

Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 09:09
Posts: 70
<img src="http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2003120263,00.gif" border=0>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 10:50 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2002, 21:15
Posts: 2000
By the way Freak there are more than 30 nations in the coalition of the willing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm

Maybe if it was your country that was attacked on 9-11 you would see why we "America" are so damn determined to strike back at terrorism no matter where it is. No more waiting to be hit first, we will now do the hitting and do it with overwhelming force. Count on it.



Fender

Don't tell me what you think, what does the T.O. say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 11:50 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2002, 17:29
Posts: 361
I think you still don't understand how the UN works. There are a lot of members, but only so many voting members who make the decisions for the UN as a whole. France, Germany and Russia are voting members. They voted against the US on the Iraq situation. Therefore, the UN as an entity does not support the US in this war, regardless of how many non-voting members agree with the US. So when you say we would have the support of the UN if only the members of the UN supported us, you are making a circular claim. Many of them DO support us, just not the ones that make a difference on this particular issue.

The French most certainly are too proud, but there's a lot more to it. The French govt has made a deal with Saddam's regime for rights to their oil. If we take out that regime, the deal's off. They have billions of $ at stake. Sure the particular companies in Germany may or will be fined, but if you were the govt wouldn't you rather sweep the whole thing under the rug, not fine your own people and let them make $? And just because they had bad politics and have to lay low through the next election cycle does not give a reasonable and justifiable excuse for allowing innocent people to die. That is unethical and inhumane in my book.

If it feels like we're pounding you hard, it's because we take this very seriously. Many of us are military or former military. In a year, it'll be my pink body out there getting shot at. For my own sanity, I HAVE to believe we're doing the right thing. If you can give me a valid argument why we shouldn't be at war, I'm all ears. But you need to come to the table with a clearer understanding of what really goes on. We don't discuss ideals here much. We're a little more wrapped up in reality, because that's what WE have to face.

"See that green switch? Flip it down."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 14:44 
Via Instapundit

The War's Benefits in Black and White

The War's Benefits in Black and White
I believe the real dispute over the war centers around priorities: no serious person would defend Saddam's regime ("I'm not trying to defend Saddam, but..."), most acknowledge that the citizens of Iraq will be better off without him, but those who oppose the war cite its expense for us and them in economic and human terms, and the cost to international relations our decision to invade without the backing of key "partners" France, Germany and Russia might cause.

An amazing new study stomps all of the anti-war rationales save the latter into a quivering mass of jello: "War in Iraq versus Containment: Weighing the Costs" by three University of Chicago professors - Steven Davis, Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel - ask these questions: Is war more or less costly than a policy of containment? And would containment save lives? They vote "no" to both.

They assume a "war and its near-term aftermath" to be $125 billion (conservatively dervived from actual CBO figures ranging from $60-123 billion including a four-month war and two years of reconstruction, peacekeeping, etc). They calculate the costs of "containment" ("the inspections are working, the inspections are working") thusly:

Putting things together, annual containment costs of $19 billion can be converted to expected present value by discounting future expenditures at an appropriate rate, which we take to be 2 percent per year, and by the 3 percent annual probability that the Iraqi regime changes character. The resulting estimate for the cost of containment is $380 billion.
This triples the high-end estimate of war expenditure. In addition:
If a policy of containing Iraq raises the cost of homeland security by even a fraction of this amount, say $10 billion per year, then the present value cost of containment rises by $200 billion. In total, our estimated U.S. cost of containment becomes $630 billion.

So that's good for us, what about Iraq? Saddam Hussein rule has reduced Iraqi income per person by at least 75% over the last 20 years. Per capita gross domestic product was $9,000 (in 2002 dollars) in 1979, the year Saddam Hussein took over - the most recent estimate puts per capita GDP at a little over $1,000. Certainly sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War played a role in this decline but Saddam brought the sanctions upon the country by refusing to honor promises to disarm, cease efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and end his support for international terrorism.

Under Saddam's Stalinism, essentially the entire economy is controlled by the state, the banking system has collapsed, inflation is estimated at about 100 percent per year. The Iraqi dinar was worth $3 in 1983 - today, $1 is worth 2,700 dinars. In order to maintain his police state, estimates are that a third of the entire labor force is engaged in intelligence, police, security, military/ service: 1.3 million people out of a total labor force of 4.4 million. In addition, Hussein has built 50 new palaces for himself since 1991 costing an estimated $2.5 billion per year in a country whose total GDP is $60 billion, almost all from oil.

And what of human life?

The regime's victims include 200,000 dead Iraqis and twice as many wounded during the 1980-88 war with Iran, an even greater number of Iranian casualties, the slaughter of 200,000 Kurds (many with chemical weapons), more than 10,000 dead Iraqis in the Gulf War of 1990-91 plus many Kuwaitis and allied troops, tens of thousands of Shi'ah Iraqis killed during brutal repressions after the Gulf War, several hundred thousand Marsh Arabs whose homeland and way of life were systematically destroyed in 1992 and 1993, and at least another 100,000 Iraqi deaths from disease and
malnutrition since the Gulf War.

All told, the current regime has killed or caused the deaths of well over half a million Iraqis [my emphasis] since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979. Under the policy of containment after the Gulf War, a reasonable estimate is that 200,000 or more Iraqis have died prematurely at the hands of the regime or as a direct consequence of its policies.

The Gulf War cost an estimated 35,000 Iraqi lives, mostly troops in the sustained aerial bombardment, which was much less discriminate than the current assault with precision bombing.

So the war to rid Iraq of Saddam's regime offers cost benefits for both the US and Iraq, and real human benefits for Iraq. Yes, there are American and allied lives being lost in the war - CNN puts coalition deaths at 78 as of this morning - but given the benefits of regime change NOW, this is a price we are thus far willing to pay for a safer, more democratic world; and this does not even take into account the likelihood of Saddam-related terror against the US should he remain in power.

Regime change is the RIGHT thing to do for the people of the US and Iraq, it has now also been shown to be the most economical in terms of both treasure and lives.


"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 15:29 
Offline

Joined: 30 Mar 2003, 11:46
Posts: 48
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So when you say we would have the support of the UN if only the members of the UN supported us, you are making a circular claim.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thats not my point, poke. I'm saying the the voting members don't support a US-action. They would however feel more comitted if a credible UN-peacekeeping force (as oposed to a US-lead effort) would have been proposed, as they are part of the UN. I would recognize this or a similar proposel as a reasonable alternative, or at least a preliminary action.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> In a year, it'll be my pink body out there getting shot at. For my own sanity, I HAVE to believe we're doing the right thing. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm very well aware of the nature of this board, and that's why i'm posting here. It never makes sense to debate people who agree with you. I could understand if you are uncomfortable with me presenting a different view, but bear in mind i don't want to convince you, nor should i. I do however want you to understand my points. I'm not totally oposed to the war, as i see the good behind it, but without serious criticism, we are doomed to make mistakes. When i witnessed
9-11 (responding to fenders post) it didn't matter who i was.
The attack was aimed towards all of us, america simply beeing the most powerful symbol. You might have noticed that germans don't have any patriotism at all, as a result of Naziism and Nationalism during WW2. Maybe I'm just not used to it, but i feel that americans, sometimes feel 'too much' patriotism.
Now, no matter how hard we've beend struck, we must not overreact or create an 'illusion of safety'. And i feel this war goes in that direction. Eventhough i might seem totally oposed, my posts are supposed to signify support for a successful campaign against islamofacism.

Freak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 16:29 
I will put this in my best 'debateese'...

The inherent flaw to your argument is that you are debating on behalf of a view with no basis in practical reality, and with no alternative hypothetical situation that can be reasonably shown to be vaible.

That's what Poke has been telling you in 'Pilotese' for a whole page now.

In 'gruntese' what we are trying to say is that you are freakin clueless.

"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"

Edited by - m21 sniper on Apr 03 2003 3:30 PM


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 16:59 
Offline
WT Game Warden
User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2002, 21:15
Posts: 2000
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Thats not my point, poke. I'm saying the the voting members don't support a US-action. They would however feel more comitted if a credible UN-peacekeeping force (as oposed to a US-lead effort) would have been proposed, as they are part of the UN. I would recognize this or a similar proposel as a reasonable alternative, or at least a preliminary action. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The UN would never send a UN-peacekeeping force because the Security council could not agree on it. Besides this was no situation for peacekeeping. Lastly what makes you think any thing the UN does is credible? I am afraid after a College educated USAF pilot explains things to you and you don't get it and then a former US Army Sniper you may not get it at all. I am trying to reach you from the middle ground. After 21 yrs in the USAF as an enlisted man I can only say to you your logic is flawed. Like I said before America is sick and tired of waiting to be hit. We will take the initative from now on. We will bring the pain to the threat before it gets to our shores if at all possible. Count on it, believe it, bank on it.

Fender

Don't tell me what you think, what does the T.O. say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 17:03 
Offline

Joined: 30 Mar 2003, 11:46
Posts: 48
LOL, snipe,
hm...up to now, you had arguments against my points,
but just saying i'm clueless just doesn't do it.
I'm not presenting facts, just my opinion, which is based on facts i know from the sources i stated over and over again.
If you are trying to make me look like a redicoulous smart-assing
debate-character, then
go ahead and say i'm clueless, but please point out what's wrong,
if you want to make a point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 17:06 
Offline

Joined: 30 Mar 2003, 11:46
Posts: 48
ok...i admit i was smartassing, but that still doesnt make me clueless <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 17:50 
Offline

Joined: 30 Mar 2003, 11:59
Posts: 71
Actually, I think sniper hit the nail on the head...

All the way...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 18:10 
Offline

Joined: 30 Mar 2003, 11:46
Posts: 48
well, then tell me what the hell is wrong!
i believe you if something was wrong, ang guess what, i don't even think the UN-idea was a good, one i was just explaining what i meant since poke didn't get my point. It's fine to disagree, but please tell me why. My opninon might not be yours, but i don't see an error in my post, so you tell me. Don't just mark me off as fool, if i made a couple of stupid posts, without even telling me whats wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 18:46 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2002, 17:29
Posts: 361
Freak, what we're trying to tell you is that the arguments that you give in support of your viewpoints are not practical. And the fact that you stick by them as being a possible solution shows us that you haven't really dug into the facts very far. You are telling us that you think the US should be in agreement with the UN, that the US should have UN backing/support/however you want to word it. We're telling you, we tried it, and we didn't get it. Not just once, but many times, with many proposals. The UN has not stopped debating and discussing the Iraq situation since before the first Gulf War. The UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq for 6 years after the first Gulf War. We've been flying over the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones for 12 years. All this conflict is nothing new. The only thing that changed is that someone, somewhere, finally did something to piss our government off enough to get the ball rolling. I'm talking about the WTC. Even if OBL isn't connected to Saddam in any way, the US has finally had enough of world bullies and we're doing something about them.

So you are trying to tell us that you think the war should be done differently, or that we shouldn't even be at war. Awesome. I'm glad that there are people out there who don't want me to be killed. But, I have a strong sense of responsibility that, because we have the power to help them, we should help the Iraqi people. In order for me to turn my back on them and let them suffer, I need a good reason, or a good way to get the job done without military involvement. So, how would you do it differently? You and I both know we aren't going to convince each other, but if you want me to RESPECT your opinion, tell me exactly what you would do. Tell me what Gen Powell, Pres Bush, and Mr. (Dr?) Rumsfield should be doing differently. Tell me what our UN reps should be doing differently. Tell me what France said in response to our proposals, and then tell me the proposal that France would agree to. Tell me where you would put what military forces. And how the key players will react.

This is the understanding of the situation that, it seems to us, you don't have. You can't know if someone is doing something wrong if you don't know what it is they are doing. So, there you go. Give me everything you got.

"See that green switch? Flip it down."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 18:49 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2002, 17:29
Posts: 361
PS: Patriot- I love that changing pic. Very nice.

In other news, it seems I need to get a new avatar as mine is now a white square with a red X...

"See that green switch? Flip it down."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2003, 19:07 
Indeed it is Poke.

"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2003, 10:23 
Offline

Joined: 28 Mar 2003, 19:13
Posts: 181
Perhaps I might interject here. We are in Iraq, the die has been cast. Debating what could have been done should be left for the historians. The only real debate now is: What should we do next, and what will the unintended consequences be? (There are always unintended consequences.)

As to the first question, I don't even want to go there.

Others have suggested that one UC of this dustup will be the creation of 1,000's of UBL's. Others have said we are out there killing the UBL's. Both position miss a critical point or two.

There will always be a segment of the Islamic world that hates us beyond all reason, and a much larger segment that is willing to just let us be (as long as we're the biggest dog on the porch!). Terrorists will be with us as long as dynamite and alarm clocks coexist in a world where some people hate beyond the point that we, in the Judeo-Christian west regard as "sane".

What we are doing now is a modern version of the old "gunboat diplomacy". I do not mean this in a negative sense, as this form of diplomacy works in a world where strength is respected and restraint is viewed as weakness. My point is this: If the message that gets out is that the U.S. will come after you if you so much as <i></i>finance<i></i> terrorists, it will have the effect of choking off the money supply. Make no mistake, large scale organized terrorism runs on money, just like any other organization. (The WTC towers would still be standing if the terrorist had to work to save up the money for flying lessons and airline tickets!) If those who pay the freight for terror are intimidated into not doing so, then GWB's GULF II effort will have been one of the soundest military investments of this century, maybe of all time.

This is what I believe:

I HATE WAR! The waste of lives and resources is an offence before a loving and Holy God. It is just a fact of the world we live in that there are times when the use of force is the best of a bad set of alternatives. Those who believe that force is never justified are idiots, who better d%mn well never call the cops if someone kicks in their door and tries to harm them.

I trust our President, My sons life is in his hands. I will continue to trust him until he proves himself unworthy of that trust.

Those who think they are being reasonable when they view the world as "improvable" if we could just communicate better, and that every human is motivated by an understandable set of reasonable desires, actually have a far narrower worldview than those they think of as narrow-minded.

If roses didn't grow in manure, there wouldn't be much beauty in the world.

If I'm wrong freak, prove it. Either facts or hard logic, choose your weapons.


"The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2003, 10:39 
Offline

Joined: 28 Mar 2003, 19:13
Posts: 181
I need to modify that just a bit. What we are doing now isn't exactly gunboat diplomacy. Rather it is the nessesary precursor to it. Henceforward, when the USS Ronald Reagan's battle group (or the USS New Jersey!(I wish!)) shows up off your coast, you will take that phone call from the U.S. President VERY seriously!


"The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group