-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Saddam Captured in Tikrit Iraq!!
Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well, I was shouting four more years in an earlier thread this week based on economy outlook for 2004. Now the capture of Saddam only supports my chant. Now, analysts are saying that Saddam's capture could cause a huge Wall St. rally. If that happens, Bush just got reelected. Sorry Dems.
TommyVercetti
Diamond Member
Here is something i thought of. Do you think Clark or Dean are sitting there saying "God Damnit, why did they have to capture him now"?
1. IIRC, it was that he would contribute money to the family of suicide bombers after the suicide bombers because the breadwinner is dead.
What a saint!
2. that's not financially supporting terrorism. if you deem all Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists, then at most it is encouraging terrorism after the fact.
Awesome logic, dude. Guess he really wasn't encouraging them at all, when you look at it that way.
3. the destruction of homes by Israelis is illegal under UN and Geneva conventions: it falls under collective punishment. and I, myself, would consider THAT terrorism because it seeks political objectives by punishing non combatant civilians.
The UN and Geneva convention condones terrorism though, eh? How should Israel respond, then?
4. on a side point, guess who's tax dollars are paying for them John Deere tractors that are destroying homes over there. Yes, money from our pockets.
On a side point, I'd rather see our aid going to Israel than these animal Palistinians!
5. please get the reasons organized and straight. what prompted the US to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq? It was the WMD that threatened international security, not $5000 per month to Palestinians.
He said SH helped sponser terrorism and gave an example, which is 100% true. Does that really bother you, or what?
6. Its not to say that what Saddam did in terms of murdering Kurds (and remember that was also done in the 80's when he was our friend that we sold weapons to) and supporting Palestinian terrorism is somehow good or insignificant. It's just that its not enough to justify war.
I too think it's terrible, the fate poor SH suffered for no good reason!
7. The point is to focus on making sure our actions are justified and it is wrong to just go around finding whatever excuses we can grab onto after we've just military toppled a country killing tens of thousands of their people and endangering our own troops in the process. Rationalizing is what people are dong nowadays when they say, "Yea, so what if there are no WMD's?? Saddam needed to go anyways sinec he's an evil murderer."
What about the people who point to Iraq?s non-compliance of Res. 1441? The point is to focus on that, instead.
What a saint!
2. that's not financially supporting terrorism. if you deem all Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists, then at most it is encouraging terrorism after the fact.
Awesome logic, dude. Guess he really wasn't encouraging them at all, when you look at it that way.
3. the destruction of homes by Israelis is illegal under UN and Geneva conventions: it falls under collective punishment. and I, myself, would consider THAT terrorism because it seeks political objectives by punishing non combatant civilians.
The UN and Geneva convention condones terrorism though, eh? How should Israel respond, then?
4. on a side point, guess who's tax dollars are paying for them John Deere tractors that are destroying homes over there. Yes, money from our pockets.
On a side point, I'd rather see our aid going to Israel than these animal Palistinians!
5. please get the reasons organized and straight. what prompted the US to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq? It was the WMD that threatened international security, not $5000 per month to Palestinians.
He said SH helped sponser terrorism and gave an example, which is 100% true. Does that really bother you, or what?
6. Its not to say that what Saddam did in terms of murdering Kurds (and remember that was also done in the 80's when he was our friend that we sold weapons to) and supporting Palestinian terrorism is somehow good or insignificant. It's just that its not enough to justify war.
I too think it's terrible, the fate poor SH suffered for no good reason!
7. The point is to focus on making sure our actions are justified and it is wrong to just go around finding whatever excuses we can grab onto after we've just military toppled a country killing tens of thousands of their people and endangering our own troops in the process. Rationalizing is what people are dong nowadays when they say, "Yea, so what if there are no WMD's?? Saddam needed to go anyways sinec he's an evil murderer."
What about the people who point to Iraq?s non-compliance of Res. 1441? The point is to focus on that, instead.
Ornery Quote
1. IIRC, it was that he would contribute money to the family of suicide bombers after the suicide bombers because the breadwinner is dead.
Your points appear quite valid so I'm in agreement.
The WMD was a lie from the start as Bush himself stated when he said "it was the only thing everyone could agree on"
Every one being NATO who was the one power to stop him ? (NATO ?)
There were so many more good reasons for ousting Sadam that didn't come to light.
Such as is with all dictators since "power corrupts & ultimate power ultimately corrupts".
As if "situation makes the person", and it does.
But there are so many dictators in the world & "We the People" haven't voted to be the "worlds policemen" yet.
We as a whole don't support the rights of others to be different, so we would make bad policemen around the world.
It appears that the war wasn't so we could get the Iraq oil, it was so those who appose us don't have it & the money.
To pay suicide bombers for one.
Also there seems to be an OPEC leverage now working to the USA advantage since a large oil field is in the hands
of USA, the OPEC nations can't hold us hostage with high oil prices.
But I don't think an offencive war should be waged based upon lies.
And where's the checks & ballences that stop that crap?
Too much dirty politics & bipartisipan ship allowed it. (in Bush politics it's "your with us or against us" right or wrong.)
When religions have armys they kill each other & seperation of church & state is required to stop that.
Bush isn't going the route of seperation of church & state, he's going the other (wrong) direction 100%.
If Bush is re-elected, I suspect he will wage war on a global basis & war is murder on a large scale.
We should keep in mind that Sadam, Noriaga, & Ben Laudin (sp) were all agents of USA CIA
& we always use, lie to, & let others down much like the Bay of Pigs.
When our bribed foriegn friends (skum) figgure out what we really are with our foriegn policy, they turn on us.
Then it becomes a personal grudge match where our polititions eliminate them, by propaganda to the US citisens first,
then military. Bush Jr. did the job Bush Sr. didn't finish. This isn't family fued were playing here, it's global war.
"Remember the Main" was the battle cry as we invaded a country, they blew up our ship was the mentality.
But we blew up our own ship because a coal fire got out of control. The people on the ship knew that.
But the information got twisted to suite the wants of polititions.
It appears to be simular to the Bush Jr. Iraq war reasons.
I don't know what the real answer to it all is, but it appears that we're a nation of over reactors,
and 911 has given "BIG BROTHER" a foot hold under the guise of the name "National Security Agency".
I'm open for logical input or corrections.
I realize my statements are incomplete, but we arn't in a court of law here either.
Those who think spelling is more important than content,
should start a spelling thread where you can all correct yourself forever.
Bitdog
1. IIRC, it was that he would contribute money to the family of suicide bombers after the suicide bombers because the breadwinner is dead.
Your points appear quite valid so I'm in agreement.
The WMD was a lie from the start as Bush himself stated when he said "it was the only thing everyone could agree on"
Every one being NATO who was the one power to stop him ? (NATO ?)
There were so many more good reasons for ousting Sadam that didn't come to light.
Such as is with all dictators since "power corrupts & ultimate power ultimately corrupts".
As if "situation makes the person", and it does.
But there are so many dictators in the world & "We the People" haven't voted to be the "worlds policemen" yet.
We as a whole don't support the rights of others to be different, so we would make bad policemen around the world.
It appears that the war wasn't so we could get the Iraq oil, it was so those who appose us don't have it & the money.
To pay suicide bombers for one.
Also there seems to be an OPEC leverage now working to the USA advantage since a large oil field is in the hands
of USA, the OPEC nations can't hold us hostage with high oil prices.
But I don't think an offencive war should be waged based upon lies.
And where's the checks & ballences that stop that crap?
Too much dirty politics & bipartisipan ship allowed it. (in Bush politics it's "your with us or against us" right or wrong.)
When religions have armys they kill each other & seperation of church & state is required to stop that.
Bush isn't going the route of seperation of church & state, he's going the other (wrong) direction 100%.
If Bush is re-elected, I suspect he will wage war on a global basis & war is murder on a large scale.
We should keep in mind that Sadam, Noriaga, & Ben Laudin (sp) were all agents of USA CIA
& we always use, lie to, & let others down much like the Bay of Pigs.
When our bribed foriegn friends (skum) figgure out what we really are with our foriegn policy, they turn on us.
Then it becomes a personal grudge match where our polititions eliminate them, by propaganda to the US citisens first,
then military. Bush Jr. did the job Bush Sr. didn't finish. This isn't family fued were playing here, it's global war.
"Remember the Main" was the battle cry as we invaded a country, they blew up our ship was the mentality.
But we blew up our own ship because a coal fire got out of control. The people on the ship knew that.
But the information got twisted to suite the wants of polititions.
It appears to be simular to the Bush Jr. Iraq war reasons.
I don't know what the real answer to it all is, but it appears that we're a nation of over reactors,
and 911 has given "BIG BROTHER" a foot hold under the guise of the name "National Security Agency".
I'm open for logical input or corrections.
I realize my statements are incomplete, but we arn't in a court of law here either.
Those who think spelling is more important than content,
should start a spelling thread where you can all correct yourself forever.
Bitdog
Bitdog, Darren's points ore numbered, mine are bold. The WMD was NOT a lie from the start. At worst, it was a mistake, but SH brought that on himself for not fully complying with Resolution 1441. After 9-11, it would have been REALLY stupid to take chances with the likes of Hussein. He was given ample opportunity to come clean and save his ass.
Preparing for more incidents like 9-11 will be an uphill battle, calling for extreme measures. I'd prefer to not be complacent and take it up the ass, like some of our Hollywood pals would.
Preparing for more incidents like 9-11 will be an uphill battle, calling for extreme measures. I'd prefer to not be complacent and take it up the ass, like some of our Hollywood pals would.
EMPshockwave82
Diamond Member
'bout time...
he is apparently "talking but not cooperating"
he is apparently "talking but not cooperating"
Mr Ornery
Quote: "The WMD was NOT a lie from the start. At worst, it was a mistake,"
That appears to be true since he did have gass he used on the Kurds and all.
But We may have given him alot of those weapons when we backed his offencive war against Iran.
And after years of sanctions, our intellegence community most certianly did know that
big weapons were just not there. Also every one knows that every nation builds Weapons
Of Mass Destruction, that is not abnormal. A machine gun is a WMD. But the indication
was that we were threatened by Sadams capibilitys and he had none to be worried about.
We kicked ass in a few weeks in Iraq. We just simply drove straight to Bagdad as if
we had nothing to worry about, after the WMD was made an issue. That shows deception,
and that is what I was talking about. I'm interested in learning your side, more info,
or any truthfull info. I'll take the stand that I don't have an opion,
all I can do is review the known facts and make a summation. That way when new truths come to light, I don't have to defend my ignorant pride & stick with a knowingly wrongfull opinion,
I can just change my summation based on all the facts including the new ones at any time.
And I still can't see the WMD threat as being anything more than an excuse to goto war for other reasons.
Quote
but SH brought that on himself for not fully complying with Resolution 1441. After 9-11, it would have been REALLY stupid to take chances with the likes of Hussein. He was given ample opportunity to come clean and save his ass.
If Sadam could have gotten his hands on Nuke, he would have for sure.
Even dirty nuke bombs. Also he would not hesitate to give it to a terrorist group he didn't like to use against us.
That would harm us (which he wanted).
That would aim our anger at a group he didn't like. (Ben Laudin, alkida, etc)(sp)
He was a worm at best. But Resolution 1441 was not suspose to be enforced by us.
There were reasons it was not enforced by NATO? (is it NATO ? or ? it's not NAFTA hahaha)
Also we may have been the ones that pushed for the resolutions that we later claimed we were enforcing? If the truth is hidden, (like I believe Bush did,) we should not go to war.
Congress ONLY has the power to declair war, but that power was taken away from them via
dirty politics or bipartisenship ?.
If they had to vote on war based on a Sadam WMD threat to us now,
the vote outcome would be very different. Which is hind sight and all.
But if the political arena was uninfluenced & honesty was the theme,
the vote would have been different, even with out the hind sight.
AND that dishonesty crap I can't support.
We arn't so stupid that you have to lie to us for our own good.
Lying to us is not for our own good.
Quote:
Preparing for more incidents like 9-11 will be an uphill battle, calling for extreme measures. I'd prefer to not be complacent and take it up the ass, like some of our Hollywood pals would.
Yep, if we sit on our ass, we're gonna take it up the ? again !
But we'll be harmed by "big brother" taking our freedom from within, so thats no answer.
I live in Alaska. Most of Alaska depends on the Ferry system. A truck bomb on a few ferries
takes out our Western outpost Alaska.
Yet not ONE SINGLE FERRY WORKER WAS GIVEN INFORMATION TO PREVENT ANY ATTACKS.
Home Land is mostly a front, every corrupt cop and district attorney accross the nation
is using the UNCONSTUTIONAL freedom act laws to destroy anyone who ever turned in a corrupt cop.
We don't have the right to privacy any more. Read the laws.
Once a huge government agency is put in place and given powers, we can't get that back.
They can't be eliminated. Taxes after WW2 wern't eliminated after the debt was paid off.
They will never give up the power.
One way to tell information from brain washing is how many times you have to hear the message.
You're not stupid by any means. If I tell you something once, I expect you are going to get the idea. I might have to clearify some points, or repeat segments if you didn't hear it,
but you are going to get the message. If I repeat it 2000 times, that's brain washing.
The governments AD COUNCIL freedom act messages are repeated thousands of times,
and that's brain washing. We the TAX PAYER PAY FOR THAT. What's the point of the messages?
I see them justifying their jobs by creating a new COLD WAR MENTALITY and there are plenty of cold war workers looking for a new enemy/job.
DUCK AND COVER propaganda messages through out the 1950's & 60's
made many people worry needlessly. The more mass worry, the higher the suiside rate,
and lots of other bad things so there is a price to pay for that kind of DOOM AND GLOOM
messages we tax payers pay for. And DUCK & COVER was never needed, nor was it a usefull
campaign since, if I stood up and had a beer while you ducked & covered, I would just get killed a nanosecond before you is all.
If there is a terrorist threat, then HOME LAND SECURITY is needed.
And that's why they spend our money brain washing us into believing there is a threat.
Remember that our drug war laws kill hundreds of people a DAY around the world. (10 per day in Columbia alone.)
Yet we don't have a HOME LAND DRUG SECURITY AGENCY protecting us from the USA drug laws.
Stairs are a big killer every year.
So even though thousands died in 911, the risk to an indivitual in a rural village in Alaska from a terrorist attack is NOTHING, ZIP, ZILTCH, NADA, THERE AIN'T ONE
but they have to endure hundreds of AD COUNCIL crap all day on the radio and TV.
I've ordered items from New York companys quit a few times and they always rip me off.
No wonder they got nuked, they treat the world as a place to steal from.
THAT'S WHAT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION IS DOING IN NEW YORK.
They loan money to corrupt dictators around the world and when they can't pay it back they get title to the water rights in the area and starve children. It's their job.
That's quite radical, but there was a TV program about that very thing,
and I always get a bad deal when I order from New York.
Bitdog
Quote: "The WMD was NOT a lie from the start. At worst, it was a mistake,"
That appears to be true since he did have gass he used on the Kurds and all.
But We may have given him alot of those weapons when we backed his offencive war against Iran.
And after years of sanctions, our intellegence community most certianly did know that
big weapons were just not there. Also every one knows that every nation builds Weapons
Of Mass Destruction, that is not abnormal. A machine gun is a WMD. But the indication
was that we were threatened by Sadams capibilitys and he had none to be worried about.
We kicked ass in a few weeks in Iraq. We just simply drove straight to Bagdad as if
we had nothing to worry about, after the WMD was made an issue. That shows deception,
and that is what I was talking about. I'm interested in learning your side, more info,
or any truthfull info. I'll take the stand that I don't have an opion,
all I can do is review the known facts and make a summation. That way when new truths come to light, I don't have to defend my ignorant pride & stick with a knowingly wrongfull opinion,
I can just change my summation based on all the facts including the new ones at any time.
And I still can't see the WMD threat as being anything more than an excuse to goto war for other reasons.
Quote
but SH brought that on himself for not fully complying with Resolution 1441. After 9-11, it would have been REALLY stupid to take chances with the likes of Hussein. He was given ample opportunity to come clean and save his ass.
If Sadam could have gotten his hands on Nuke, he would have for sure.
Even dirty nuke bombs. Also he would not hesitate to give it to a terrorist group he didn't like to use against us.
That would harm us (which he wanted).
That would aim our anger at a group he didn't like. (Ben Laudin, alkida, etc)(sp)
He was a worm at best. But Resolution 1441 was not suspose to be enforced by us.
There were reasons it was not enforced by NATO? (is it NATO ? or ? it's not NAFTA hahaha)
Also we may have been the ones that pushed for the resolutions that we later claimed we were enforcing? If the truth is hidden, (like I believe Bush did,) we should not go to war.
Congress ONLY has the power to declair war, but that power was taken away from them via
dirty politics or bipartisenship ?.
If they had to vote on war based on a Sadam WMD threat to us now,
the vote outcome would be very different. Which is hind sight and all.
But if the political arena was uninfluenced & honesty was the theme,
the vote would have been different, even with out the hind sight.
AND that dishonesty crap I can't support.
We arn't so stupid that you have to lie to us for our own good.
Lying to us is not for our own good.
Quote:
Preparing for more incidents like 9-11 will be an uphill battle, calling for extreme measures. I'd prefer to not be complacent and take it up the ass, like some of our Hollywood pals would.
Yep, if we sit on our ass, we're gonna take it up the ? again !
But we'll be harmed by "big brother" taking our freedom from within, so thats no answer.
I live in Alaska. Most of Alaska depends on the Ferry system. A truck bomb on a few ferries
takes out our Western outpost Alaska.
Yet not ONE SINGLE FERRY WORKER WAS GIVEN INFORMATION TO PREVENT ANY ATTACKS.
Home Land is mostly a front, every corrupt cop and district attorney accross the nation
is using the UNCONSTUTIONAL freedom act laws to destroy anyone who ever turned in a corrupt cop.
We don't have the right to privacy any more. Read the laws.
Once a huge government agency is put in place and given powers, we can't get that back.
They can't be eliminated. Taxes after WW2 wern't eliminated after the debt was paid off.
They will never give up the power.
One way to tell information from brain washing is how many times you have to hear the message.
You're not stupid by any means. If I tell you something once, I expect you are going to get the idea. I might have to clearify some points, or repeat segments if you didn't hear it,
but you are going to get the message. If I repeat it 2000 times, that's brain washing.
The governments AD COUNCIL freedom act messages are repeated thousands of times,
and that's brain washing. We the TAX PAYER PAY FOR THAT. What's the point of the messages?
I see them justifying their jobs by creating a new COLD WAR MENTALITY and there are plenty of cold war workers looking for a new enemy/job.
DUCK AND COVER propaganda messages through out the 1950's & 60's
made many people worry needlessly. The more mass worry, the higher the suiside rate,
and lots of other bad things so there is a price to pay for that kind of DOOM AND GLOOM
messages we tax payers pay for. And DUCK & COVER was never needed, nor was it a usefull
campaign since, if I stood up and had a beer while you ducked & covered, I would just get killed a nanosecond before you is all.
If there is a terrorist threat, then HOME LAND SECURITY is needed.
And that's why they spend our money brain washing us into believing there is a threat.
Remember that our drug war laws kill hundreds of people a DAY around the world. (10 per day in Columbia alone.)
Yet we don't have a HOME LAND DRUG SECURITY AGENCY protecting us from the USA drug laws.
Stairs are a big killer every year.
So even though thousands died in 911, the risk to an indivitual in a rural village in Alaska from a terrorist attack is NOTHING, ZIP, ZILTCH, NADA, THERE AIN'T ONE
but they have to endure hundreds of AD COUNCIL crap all day on the radio and TV.
I've ordered items from New York companys quit a few times and they always rip me off.
No wonder they got nuked, they treat the world as a place to steal from.
THAT'S WHAT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION IS DOING IN NEW YORK.
They loan money to corrupt dictators around the world and when they can't pay it back they get title to the water rights in the area and starve children. It's their job.
That's quite radical, but there was a TV program about that very thing,
and I always get a bad deal when I order from New York.
Bitdog
- Either Powell lied or he didn't. No matter what weapons are found, or not, I don't think he was lying.
- "Resolution 1441 was not suspose to be enforced by us..." We're the ones getting planes flown into buildings. No apologies for taking our fate into our own hands.
- If somebody else has a better plan for keeping this country secure, they can get elected and put it in place. I'm happy to stay the course, since it's working so far, which is the most we can ask for.
Mr. Ornery
Powell might not be a real insider?
He appears to often be used as a buffer protecting the core.
He may have a speach writer that writes what the president tells him to write, or
have clear policy lines he has to stick within.
Many folks who claimed there would be WMD believed that, and there fore didn't knowingly lie.
But there's still missing info links, like a school boys report in England suddenly becomes top info recited by the president. Then other info that was disreguarded because it wasn't what we wanted to hear & repeat.
There's a big flaw in there some where & that kind of action boils down to lie.
Good faith don't cut it as an excuse.
Sadam didn't have anything to do with 911.
There is no evidece connecting the two.
We did get Pearl Harbored, and that requires a responce of some kind,
and Afiganistan harbored the perportrators apperantly.
They couldn't be allowed to hide behind borders.
I don't know who would be a better replacement for Bush, if there is such a person.
An anti war person might not be a good thing considering the world conditions now.
But how far to go ? or which president will go too far ?
I think we're committed & have to finish the job, what ever that is.
Say we elect a tough anti war prez that will finish what we started.
And do it right. And restore our rights again. And strive for a NON COLD WAR stance.
Reduce the budget deficite our kids will inherit. etc
But I haven't seen an honest looking democrat or republican choice for prez yet.
Not one that actually made me think, ok theres a man with a mind worthy of my vote.
PS, thanks for the chat
Powell might not be a real insider?
He appears to often be used as a buffer protecting the core.
He may have a speach writer that writes what the president tells him to write, or
have clear policy lines he has to stick within.
Many folks who claimed there would be WMD believed that, and there fore didn't knowingly lie.
But there's still missing info links, like a school boys report in England suddenly becomes top info recited by the president. Then other info that was disreguarded because it wasn't what we wanted to hear & repeat.
There's a big flaw in there some where & that kind of action boils down to lie.
Good faith don't cut it as an excuse.
Sadam didn't have anything to do with 911.
There is no evidece connecting the two.
We did get Pearl Harbored, and that requires a responce of some kind,
and Afiganistan harbored the perportrators apperantly.
They couldn't be allowed to hide behind borders.
I don't know who would be a better replacement for Bush, if there is such a person.
An anti war person might not be a good thing considering the world conditions now.
But how far to go ? or which president will go too far ?
I think we're committed & have to finish the job, what ever that is.
Say we elect a tough anti war prez that will finish what we started.
And do it right. And restore our rights again. And strive for a NON COLD WAR stance.
Reduce the budget deficite our kids will inherit. etc
But I haven't seen an honest looking democrat or republican choice for prez yet.
Not one that actually made me think, ok theres a man with a mind worthy of my vote.
PS, thanks for the chat
You're just plain stupid. If i didn't have finals to study for, i'd be happy to take an hour of my time and write a few pages explaining how wrong you are. Instead I'll just leave it as this: There are 9 Democratic presidential candidates at the moment. Any of them could do a better job than Bush has over the last four years. Capturing Saddam has been seen as a big victory for the Bush administration, but even if you can credit Bush with his capture (I don't, I credit the fine men and women of our military), he's still an idiot, and he'll only continue to muck up our country if he is re-elected.
Oh, and considering the majority of our population voted for a Democratic presidential candidate last election, do you really think that the end of the Democratic party would be a good thing? No Democratic party means no Democrats in the senate as well, you know. I personally can't imagine living in a country where at least half the population doesn't have any political representation. That would suck. Get a clue buddy.
Map Tells Election Story
- ...Gore won only a quarter as many counties as Bush. And population growth in Gore Country over the past decade has been 5%, compared with 14% for counties in Bush Country. Immigrants have been flooding cities, but natives are moving out in pursuit of jobs, space and better housing. - Text
DevilsAdvocate
Banned
Amen to that 🙂
Sarcasm or Link?
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
i think he is asserting that hussien = wmd
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
