Sept. 11th

X

xane

Guest
Originally posted by doh_boy
As for Communism I agree that the system was let down by the implementation ...
Click to expand...

Communism, the kind preached by Marx, has never been fully implemented. The dictatorships that evolved were actually part of the necessary implementation process, but those at the top just kept making excuses and endless n-year plans as to why they should never advance to the utopian image envisioned by Marx and co, if you look at China and Cuba they are _still_ putting these stupid plans into effect.

It is sad the world never saw a "real" communist state emerge, however, Marx had always envisaged the capitalism was in fact a step on the way towards communism. A true communist state would have full democracy and social provision for basic needs, like education and medicine, is that not what we have got already ?

The major flaw in communism is it expects everybody to be politically active, with local and national political issues being voted or debated by a large representation of people. In reality most of us don't give a shit who is in government and often regard political parties like supporting football teams, additionally most people in the world are too poorly educated to consider political concepts. Communism is doomed because even in its utopian version, a small bunch of people will end up controlling the country simply because they are the only ones bothered enough to do it.

Communism is also against organised religion, despite that fact that the political existance of communism is exactly like a religion in itself. Today's world is becoming more and more polarised in religious views.

I often think of the song "Imagine" by Lennon when people refer to "utopian communism (or socialism)", I just wonder what John had been thinking as he wrote "imagine no posessions" whilst looking out of his country manor at his line of Rolls-Royces on the driveway.
 
S

Shocko

Guest
Good stuff Stu :D

I think all of Prime1's rather illogical points have been answered by DohBoy and Stu, so i'll chip in with the obligatory name calling :)



























Fs, i can't think of anything good to call him :( Oh, and SG/Newbie, the USSR won WW2 - It was their push into Berlin that caused Hitler to commit suicide, however the key thing is, that the USSR played the biggest role in the land-war in Europe.
 
T

tris-

Guest
Originally posted by Super_Gray[SG]


Didnt Hitler kill himself after the war ended?? Not done history in years or read up on him personally, but i swear he died afterwards
Click to expand...

i always thought he hung him self during the war and thats why it ended.

Oh, and SG/Newbie, the USSR won WW2 - It was their push into Berlin that caused Hitler to commit suicide, however the key thing is, that the USSR played the biggest role in the land-war in Europe.

i was partially right then.
 
X

xane

Guest
Originally posted by Super_Gray[SG]
Didnt Hitler kill himself after the war ended?? Not done history in years or read up on him personally, but i swear he died afterwards
Click to expand...

He committed suicide on 30 April 1945, Germany officially signed a surrender pact on 3 May, and on 8 May it was declared "Victory in Europe" (VE Day).

The japanese surrender was 2 September, so WWII did not officially end until then.
 
T

tris-

Guest
Originally posted by camazotz


He committed suicide on 30 April 1945, Germany officially signed a surrender pact on 3 May, and on 8 May it was declared "Victory in Europe" (VE Day).

The japanese surrender was 2 September, so WWII did not officially end until then.
Click to expand...

learn something new everyday, i never knew VE meant that :(
 
B

bodhi

Guest
Originally posted by stu

Which leaves us with his threat globally. And that's the crux of the matter really. Scott Ritter's (a 'card carrying Republican with over 10 years inspections experience) UNSCOM (UN Special Committee) report on Iraq stated that "95-98%" of Iraq's strategic and NBC weapons capability had been destroyed or rendered inoperable
Click to expand...


Just a quick point, I saw on News 24 last night that the rest of the US's weapons inspectors think he's talking shite.
 
E

exxxie

Guest
Much here to comment on :)


However, my Tax Return KEEPS STARING AT ME whispering threats of late payment fines :/

Ill toss in my tuppence later.
 
B

bids

Guest
Stu ........... "2) you are firmly entrenched in your views, and aren't going to change them."

Irony alert
 
P

prime1

Guest
Originally posted by stu
"Yes .. but Bush signed that mandate in response to Iraq not agreeing to thier side of the peace treaty."

Really? It was signed this January. What has suddenly changed that has made Iraq a threat since January, but not for years before? The very crux of the issue, and the reason I'm a sceptic - 'why now?' Surely it couldn't be the US Administration exploiting the tragedy of September 11th in the very worst way to wage all its petty wars and restrict freedoms in all the ways it couldn't get away with before the catch all excuse of 'war against terror', could it?

"Operation Desert Fox was not a war, it was a miltiary operation, theres a very large difference."

Yes. In a war both sides fight. Just like the recent Afghanistan campaign wasn't a war - the US never actually declared war. Funny how you can bomb a country, invade and overthrow its ruling system and implement your own, without ever going to war.

"Iraq was not a puppet state, if it was a puppet state it would not have gone against the US's wishes and invaded Kuwait."

The dog turned upon its master. Same as the Muhajedin. The USA is the fool for thinking it could control them in the first place.

"They develop their own weapons of mass destruction, whatever (if any) the US and Russia supplied them would be insignifant compared to what they have, and what they seek now."

Proof? UNSCOM says they have no stockpile of NBC weaponry, and no real means to deliver it. Bush and Blair prattle on and on about the threat, but they have presented NO proof whatsoever.

"Neither were their soldiers trained by the US so that they could be used on thier own people like that, it was done to help Iraq deal with hostile threates from Iran, a nation openly hostile to the US."

And again, what was the US interfering in the Iran/Iraq war for? And don't give me any bullshit about Iran was a threat to the US - the war was entirely local.

"Yes, it backfired on them in a big way, but the Iran/Iraq situation was beyond Americas control anyway"

Exactly. Yet you propose to do the same again.

"Iraq is capable and has developed its own WOMD, it did not need the US for this."

Proof? Hello? That's all us 'liberals' are asking for. Show us PROOF that Iraq is a threat to the West, and I'll pull the arming pins from the bombs myself. Try and con us with half-assed rhetoric about terror, and we remain unimpressed. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

"The taliban were not sponsored by the US, EVER. The mujahadeen (however u spell it) was sponsored by the US. The Taliban came from Pakistan and took control later, because the pollitical and economic climate in the region made it easy for them to do so, the Taleban was an ilegal uprising - that is why they were not recognised as a government by the UN."

The Taliban evolved from the Pakistani secret police/intelligence service. Who were funded and trained by the CIA in the 70s. Again, the dog turned upon its master. Glad to see you admit that the US sponsored a group of guerilla terrorists to perform an illegal and bloody coup against a liberal but (and here's the key point) communist regime though.

"Karzai was orginally setup by the US, that is true, however he now has a mandate from the people as his original 6 month term is long gone, and the loya jurga (the Afghan version of parliament) re elected him as leader"

Who elected the parliament? No one. It's an arbitrary organisation of Northern Alliance commanders and warlords. The Northern Alliance has/had no real representation of the Afghani people. Kabul bears virtually no relation to the rest of the country. There is a growing and substantial discontent 'on the ground' in Afghanistan against US presence and (consequently) Karzai's administration, as he is seen by the Afghani people as a puppet of the US. Read any respected journalist's work (here's a piece by Fisk to get you started)

"There are no al'qaeda in his government, id like to know how you are aware of this, being that the US authorities clearly arn't, perhaps you should tell them so that they can arrest them before they do some harm."

How very facetious. Again, read some independent journalists' reports. You might want to start with the story of the sacking of Hirjibit.

"The tribal warlords in power in afghanistan is the same as its always been, and the tirbal system is the system the Afghan people want. You are trying to apply western government and pollitcal values to a system totaly alien to us."

"The closest comparrison is that the Tribes are like our counties and the warlords are the mayors - its the way afghanistan has always been, and to get rid of this system (as by your comments you seem to think would be best) would deffinitely be imposing something on them they didnt want."

You've just dropped a thousand pound bomb on your own argument.

I'll leave you with this quote:

"Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."

Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, CNN military consultant (Aug. 20)
Click to expand...


The mandate has to be given at some point, operation desert fox was partially as a result of the same problems, i think its just the the US never really took such a threat as seriously as they should have until after sept 11th, better late than never.

Before september 11, early in 2001 when bush n blair first met, one of the items they discussed was Iraq and how to deal with Saddam and the wepaons of mass destruction, they both came out of that meeting with the same fears and resolutions, this all happened along way before sept 11th.

Most of the sorties into Iraq have been in response to the, firing on allied planes, what was it, 130 times so far this year?

And as for teh journalists reports, i couldnt give a shit what some journalists oppinnions is, journalists are sensationalist and always have thier oen mandate - to crack the big story, to turn the most heads, so whatever information theyve gleened from people who heard something from someone whos brother has a friend near to someone who was at "the event" means jack shit to me. The only people who truely know are the special forces and intelligence officers working on the ground in the area- who do they report to? Bush n Blair - who has the most reliable information? Bush n Blair, what do the people with the most relliable info want to do ? stop saddam.


"And of course, you're not trying to do that by proposing to invade and overthrow the regime at all... :rolleyes: The point I was making was OF COURSE tribal leadership was the system the people want. What they DONT want is an arbitrarily decided group of warlords being given total control over the country and using their new "legitimate" state powers to further their typical expansionist activity."

Well that IS the tribal system and that IS the system they have always had, until the Taliban took control. Subsequently by the US re-enstating this form of government they are returning Afghanistan to the power and government system they have always head, where they then go from there is up to them.

so no bombing of my own argument, but uve done a great job contradicting yourself.

I pointed out in great detail in my last post what the current situation is regarding missing weapons in Iraq, im not foing it again, read back, suffice to say it only takes one device, there are potentially 50+ in Iraqs arsenal that are unaccounted for. Frankly i dont care what Saddam says about these weapons, if he wont own up hes hiding something, if hes hiding something he has an ulterior motive, and yes the *majority* of the previous weapons inspectors think the guy who spoke out against the action is talking shit, thats just 1 guy, the rest disagree.

The other side of this is, that if Iraq develops these weapons and is unchecked, he can then threaten his neighbours (cause we know how responsible hes been towards them in the past) with them, this means that in roder to counter this threat.. the neighbours have to develope their own .. counter measures, what would follow is a WOMD arms race in the middle east that can only lead to disaster, theres more to this than just the direct threat on the west.

So i take it from your quote you feel it is therefore acceptable for them to nuke Israel? Then i spose Israel will nuke Iraq, and god knows what will happen after that. But no your right, let them get on and do it, i mean what happens in the middle east dosnt affect us.. right? .. or have you come around to my argument, cause that quote does nothing for your own.
 
P

prime1

Guest
I cant be bothered to answer any more comments from you, as we are just goign round i n circles, you ahve your beliefs on this I have mine, neither of us carries all the facts so whatever we say we can always find fault with each others argument, m not gona be at work for a few days and im not wasting my own private time on you.
 
N

Nos-

Guest
Why exactly was it necessary to quote his entire post?

Please learn how to use a forum.

thx.
 
E

exxxie

Guest
I saw this (on the ch4 news forum) and thought of you:

Five Good Reasons to go to War with Iraq

1. To detract from Afghanistan, the failure to punish Al-Quaida, and all that embarrassing "wanted, dead or alive" stuff. The US networks will not try to confuse their viewers by covering two foreign countries at once.

2. Doing nothing would be worse. Madeleine Albright's not too bright remarks, that the deaths of several hundred thousand caused by sanctions is a price worth paying, has already caused a lot of anti-US resentment. They are "Damned if they don't", they might not be "damned if they do".

3. Oil. Getting control of Iraq's oil would reduce the US's dependency on Saudi Arabia, the possible venue of a future "regime change".

4. Safety. Saddam does not have any weapons of mass destruction. If he had, the US would not dare attack him, and definitely would not tell him of the attack months in advance. Also, unlike Serbia and Afghanistan, Iraq should not be too scary for US troops. Less mountains, less dangerous locals, more deserts, just as the USAF likes things to be.

5. It will cause anger and resentment in the Arab World. Good vote-winner that.

Original post by 1-0 _to_the_arsenal



Kinda made me think.

Why IS Iraq the focus of attention one year on from 11 Sep ? Its an easy target? The US public will see Iraq as an old enemy and wont hesitate to support any such action that George Dubya sees fit? Not according to the NY Times this weekend. Most Americans do NOT favour a war with Iraq. Most of us Brits arent in favour of a war either for that matter.

A channel 4 documentary over the weekend suggested that Al-Quaida camps are still operating in remote parts of Afghanistan/Pakistan. A lawless territory that the US has no control over at present. Hmm.

In April of this year a Tunisian previously unconnected with any Terrorist group blew up a Synagogue(sic?) killing and maiming scores of people with a home made gas cylinder explosion. Guess who claimed responsibility?

Oil :/

Oil and the US could form the basis of 50 threads of their own, I wont be drawn into that argument fully, but Afghanistan is the country through which a big fat Yank pipeline is planned to be built. Iraq exchanging Oil for Aid sickens me, as it will be proven in history, both sides must take their share of this blame.

As stu has pointed out, we the public have yet to be given proof of Saddam's WoMD. The US agencies CAN us that a guy in the far east (name undisclosed) is planning a car bomb attack tommorow, but they cant show us a satellite piccy of a scud or a working chemical weapons factory or a hardened nuke shelter. But if WoMD and an aggresive goverment are a reason to invade a country and topple a regime, then lets invade China next please, or Russia, or... or the YANKS damnit.


Anger and Resentement: this is basically ALL the Bush administration HAS achieved in the last 12 months.
 
D

Durzel

Guest
Reading between the lines - its fairly obvious that:
  • The US (and to a lesser extent the UK which has always been a puppet as far as US-led global initiatives have been concerned) chose now to suggest/initiate military action against Iraq because of events last year. It is likely that because of these events, public outcry against these actions will be at its lowest - especially since the whole "war on terror" propoganda will be in full swing.
  • Iraq is no more dangerous now than it was 6 months, 12 months or even 2 years ago. I actually doubt Saddam would be stupid enough to launch any kind of attack on the US. Whether or not he is stockpiling weapons is moot really, given we (UK/US) all do it.
  • In War there is no winning, only degrees of losing. Never is this more relevant than in "the West" vs Iraq. Even if we did "succeed" in blowing up installations, weapon silos and what have you - all we will achieve, like last time, is simply to deepen the hatred and contempt the populous have for the Western World. Even if it were possible to overthrow Saddam, I'd be amazed if any West-approved replacement didn't end up getting assassinated before the year was out.
Just look how unsuccessful the US has been in doing any kind of damage to Al Qaeda. You'd think they would've learnt their lesson with Vietnam, but apparently not. For the third time in history they (and to an extent us) are wading into a war that we cannot possibly "win".

Tip for the Day: The side with the home advantage invariably wins.
 
M

mr.Blacky

Guest
Oh that site has to be a joke, most obivious off course but I am too tired to understand that.
 
S

stu

Guest
ok prime, I'm going to tell you a story. All of it is FACT - it's all in the public domain. Now if you can answer the questions at the end of this story and somehow make them fit into your argument, I'll understand where you're coming from.

Ever since 1967 and the Arab-Israeli war, relations between the US and Iraq had been strained. The Iran-Iraq was was escalating into a rather bloody little local conflict. President Reagan sent an envoy by the name of Donald Rumsfeld (you've heard of him, surely) with an open letter to Baghdad saying that the US would be willing to reopen relations at any time.

12 days after Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, the US announced a policy-shift stating that the defeat of Iraq by Iran would be "contrary to US interests", and that it was already making several moves to prevent that result.

Three months later in 1984, Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad. On the very day of his visit, the UN released a report detailing that Iraq had used chemical weapons in the combat to date against Iranian soldiers. They were deployed from the air.

Prior to this report even being released, the US State Department released a statement saying that it had "conclusive evidence that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". US Ambassador Kirkpatrick was quoted as saying "we think the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."

Despite Rumsfeld being in Baghdad WHILST his own State Department and the UN issued reports detailing the use of chemical weapons, the issue was not raised with Iraq. Within 6 months, full diplomatic relations between the US and Iraq were again in effect.

One of Rumsfeld and Reagan's acts was to remove Iraq from the list of "suspected sponsors of terrorism", in return for promises of lucrative contracts with US Defence contractors. As soon as this occurred, and for many months, Iraq went on a buying spree. Its first purchase was for 70 military helicopters. Another 45 were purchased less than a year later. Congress attempted to block the purchases, but their opposition was killed by the White House.

Soon afterwards, the infamous gassing of the kurds happened. US intelligence sources revealed that the helicopters purchased from the US had been used to deliver the chemical weaponry. The Senate passed sweeping sanctions in light of this to prevent Iraq having access to US military technology. These were quashed by the White House.

Throughout the period, Rumsfeld or anyone else in the Administration made NO public expressions of even remote concern regarding the use of chemical weaponry against either military or civilian targets.

Rumsfeld is now one of the ultra-hawks in the Bush administration, is one of the main figureheads alongside GW himself calling for the elimination of Saddam's regime due to the potential horrors of weapons of mass destruction.

So I ask you:

If the USA REALLY cares about weapons of mass destruction
If the USA REALLY cares about civil liberties and the abuse of rights
If the USA REALLY cares about the stability of the Middle East, for its own sake

How on earth can you reconcile that with the above?
 
P

prime1

Guest
Il give 1 more reply to the above....

Governments change and can learn from thier mistakes. Perhaps rumsfield is particuly anxious to make a change because of those very events. To be honest I dont know, its a very fucked up situation, and noone will never know the right answer, perhaps until it is too late. I still feel that at the time the US was chossing what it felt was the lesser of two evils, it coul dhave helped either side, as either side could have provided those contracts. It obviosuly came down to oil, as it was in the US's (and the rest of the wests) interest to keep the oil flowing to the west, there would also have been a worry that if the US didnt help, then Russia would.

But the mere fact that Saddam is willign and capable of using those chemical weapons, and by the fact you acknowledge that he therefore must have *some*, it does not detract from teh fact, that there is a very real risk of Iraq supplying them to a terrorist cell for use covertly against the West, i very much doubt he would actually use them, in an all out war scenario (unless he feels he is about to be killed/lost) that they create, the big concern is what they do covertly. Again theres a posibility that war will force his hand, and there s apossiblity that doing nothign will allow him to help others do the damage. Weighing up the two options im guessing that they felt it was best to try and stop him before he was realisticaly capable of striking anywhere other than very short range crude attacks.


The whole issue is difficult, but looking back over the past, I would say we have suffered enough from not acting early enough, in my oppinion it is better we take the smaller risk now and remove him, than take the bigger risk later of letting him consolidate his power. I read a comment on the BBC website not long ago it said something like this "there was another global organisation that failed to enforce its rulings, and this failure lead to a great war, that organisation was the League Of Nations and the great war was ww2", referring to the league of nations being incapable of enforcing its restrictions on Germany's military machine, because not enough of its members wanted to take action. I get the feeling that we are going to see a horrible repeat of history, to make that mistake once was bad enough, but twice is criminal. Now of course Israel comes in to this as well , as they violate UN resolutions as well. The US position on Isreal is questionable, but it is udnerstandable, firstly Israel has never done anything to *them*, secondly the US made a bold promise to protect Isreal at its inception, thirdly Isreal is the only state in that area that can genuinely be called friendly to the US (IE its citizens as well as its government - not just the governments keeping the US on board so they can make money from them). If the US withdrew its backing the risk to Isreal of the arab states taking retliatory action is very great. Also why should the US help a people who celebrated on September 11th? (regardless of the reasons why, if someone celebrated cause somethign awful happened to me (like stu maybe ;p ) id certainly be inclined to say "fuck you" when they then come to me for help with one of my friends causing them problems :/
 
S

stu

Guest
I'm not 100% against action per se, I'd just like some proof. I haven't seen any yet. I'm not convinced by talks of a "secret dossier" - I mean fucking hell Tony, either you've got the evidence or you don't.

Iraq has never been proven as a sponsor of terrorism. Attempts to link Iraq in any way to September 11th totally failed. I agree the danger would come were Saddam to be put under extreme pressure - personally I think there is no danger of him using any NBC weaponry otherwise. Why? Saddam himself. He's brutal, he's aggressive, and he's at time extreme, but he's also incredibly clever. He's played the opinions of the world for almost two decades now, continually pushing the boundaries but never overstepping the mark that would result in his total removal. Either that's a very long running coincidence, or he's very smart indeed.

Personally I believe the best solution would be for Iraq to readmit UN weapons inspectors, combined with a deal to lift the crippling sanctions still in place on the condition that inspections continue. It would result in a non-violent, legitimate and internationally recognised solution. It would also make the US look better in the face of the Arab world (an issue they SERIOUSLY have to address). Unfortunately I don't see the US pushing for that at the moment (if weapons of mass destruction was REALLY their major concern, surely they should be?), because they don't really want that to happen - it would remove their only even semi-legit excuse for deposing Saddam.

Drawing parallels between the League of Nations/Nazi Germany and now isn't really relevant. In fact there is one country that has mimiced exactly what Germany did prior to World War II - that is, the systematic invasion of neighbouring territory, the unilateral seizure and reappropriation of land for its own people, the expulsion, internment, and in documented cases wholesale slaughter of a people, a repeated and consistent non-compliance with international regulations, and all on the basis of being a race of 'superior beings'. That country is not called Iraq though - it's called Israel. And whilst the US continues to mindlessly support a regime like that, you will simply never convince me that it takes any action in the best interests of anyone except itself.
 
S

Shocko

Guest
Originally posted by prime1
Now of course Israel comes in to this as well , as they violate UN resolutions as well. The US position on Isreal is questionable, but it is udnerstandable, firstly Israel has never done anything to *them*,
Click to expand...
USS Liberty.




Prime1, your reasoning as to why the US supports Isreal, and why it wants to invade Iraq is laughable. For a whole thread, you've been claiming that we, no, the US should attack Iraq, and it would be right to do so. You argue against international law, stating that the US has the legal right to invade Iraq, yet you justify the US' relationship with Isreal, by "friendship".

You obviously think the US can do what it wants, so why not just admit, that the US has no right to invade Iraq, no legal "treaty" that allows it to do so, and (the US)is the biggest threat to the world since the Cold War cooled down.

And to get back on track:
I bloody well hope the US is attacked today, because the first attack didn't hit home, to the Americans, why no-one likes them. But then again, should we expect the decendants of a bunch of renegade merchants and rebellious slave owners, to beat the arrogance that comes so naturally to them?
 
P

prime1

Guest
shocko, thats not what ive said either. Ive given several reasons for the US, primarily being that the US has promised to pretect them, in the pallestinian/isreal argument they are both as bad as each other, there is no justifaction for eithers actions, my point is simply that there is no reason for the US to support the pallestinians - the people who were seen celebrating in the streets.

your last comments also show that you are unbelievable cunt, and as such i shouldnt evenjustify your comments with a reply.
 
S

stu

Guest
prime - I think the irreconcilable duality is that the US is talking about attacking Iraq because 1) it has weapons of mass destruction 2) its regime isnt fair 3) it infringes on human rights etc... yet Israel does *all* of these things (in fact many things which Iraq does not even do, but we 'suspect' them of doing), and yet the US backs it through thick and thin. Even when GW basically ordered Israel out of Jenin, and Sharon refused, what happened? Nothing.

The US should either decide that it's on the side of right, and therefore pursue action (be it diplomatic, military or economic) against *all* oppressive regimes, or it should have the guts to drop the bullshit quasi-crusader "war against terror" rhetoric and just admit that it's going up against Iraq because it bears a grudge.

And that's without even mentioning Indonesia...
 
X

xenon2000

Guest
Originally posted by prime1
your last comments also show that you are unbelievable cunt, and as such i shouldnt evenjustify your comments with a reply.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Shame that interesting debates normally get ruined by ignorant stereotyping fuckwits round here...
 
L

legendario

Guest
Originally posted by xenon2000
Agreed. Shame that interesting debates normally get ruined by ignorant stereotyping fuckwits round here...
Click to expand...

Can you please provide an example of stereotyping in this thread?
 
X

xenon2000

Guest
The post that prime1 was reffering to in that quote. Does it really need explaining?
 
D

Damini

Guest
Originally posted by stu

Iraq has never been proven as a sponsor of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Saddam offering money to the families of suicide bombers? I might be wrong, but I thought I read that somewhere.

And Shocko, I find your comments disgusting. It's the same as me hoping your mother gets killed by the IRA this weekend, because obviously the brits have failed to take enough notice of being bombed by the IRA in the past. You completely undermine your own arguments and intellect by acting like a prize cunt. How can you scream hysterically about the evil of america, whilst simultaneoulsy endorsing the murder of innocent Non Military Civilians in America? Stinks of hypocrisy to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom