Jump to content

Does Japan deserve a UN Security seat?


Recommended Posts

After all the war crimes in World War 2 and their refusal to properly apologize, do you think Japan is worthy of a spot on the Un Security council?

:lol:

I'm laughing. After killing all these innocent civilians in a world war and whitewashing their students, they want to join a group of nations promoting human rights and peace. Damn it's too funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you view Italy or Germany in the same regard?

Thing is, Germany actually looked at their errors in the past and fixed it. Japan however countinues to deny the fact that they've commited any war crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan however countinues to deny the fact that they've commited any war crimes.
We still do commerce with them.

We could make them re-write their history books overnight with financial sanctions if we wanted --- I mean, if we could afford it.

Rule #1 in life: Follow the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all the war crimes in World War 2 and their refusal to properly apologize, do you think Japan is worthy of a spot on the Un Security council?

:lol:

I'm laughing. After killing all these innocent civilians in a world war and whitewashing their students, they want to join a group of nations promoting human rights and peace. Damn it's too funny.

The UN is nothing but a wanabe world government, presently led by a person who is biased against Israel. They have become a toothless tiger, and Canada should stop sendng money to this undemocratic group of appointed bureaucrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

World War II was over 60 years ago. Most people in Japan weren't even born when these things were going on, how can you possibly blame them for that? All of the countries on the UN security council have been at war at one point or another. Hell, the U.S. dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on Japan in WWII, but I don't hold that against them because it happened a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all the war crimes in World War 2 and their refusal to properly apologize, do you think Japan is worthy of a spot on the Un Security council?

:lol:

I'm laughing. After killing all these innocent civilians in a world war and whitewashing their students, they want to join a group of nations promoting human rights and peace. Damn it's too funny.

Russia and China are on the security council, and both are unrepentant killers of millions of their own citizens. As has been pointed out, the Americans flattened two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons, killing hundreds of thousands in both instances. Britain carpet bombed Germany mercilessly, and France is only on the council as a swing vote because they have no measureable sense of loyalty to anyone other than themselves. If you go back far enough, nearly every nation has engaged in disgraceful activites of one form or another.

For the record, I think expanding the Security Council is a bad idea no matter who you propose to add to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all the war crimes in World War 2 and their refusal to properly apologize, do you think Japan is worthy of a spot on the Un Security council?

:lol:

I'm laughing. After killing all these innocent civilians in a world war and whitewashing their students, they want to join a group of nations promoting human rights and peace. Damn it's too funny.

They deserve a seat far more than does China or Russia. Both of these countries showed by their reluctance to impose sacnctions on North Korea and Iran just where they stand on world peace, they don't stand at all. All they will go along with is just another statement telling North Korea that their behaviour is unacceptable. That was already done when they fired the last rocket over Japan into the Pacific Ocean. This shows quite clearly that the United Nations is nothing but a huge, expensive bureaucracy whose relavance is questionable at best. Maybe it is time to disband this useless organization who holds itself out as some type of world government. To my mind they have so far ben one huge failure, except in the area of propping up dictatorships and terrorist organizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US has been charged with multiple war crimes, in one war after another, do they belong on the council?

Initial Complaint

Charging

George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,

Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,

Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named

With

Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against

Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in

Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,

International Law, the Constitution of the United States

and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&...16B265&set_id=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834089.stm

This is an interesting link on NATO being charged with war crimes http://www.infoshop.org/news_archive/warcrimes.html

Critics have questioned the legal basis of some of the charges at the post–World War II trials. Individuals were found guilty of acts considered legal, or even required, by their nation at the time; such findings represent a violation of the concept of sovereignty. The plotting or carrying out of aggressive war had not been previously and explicitly called criminal, and the judges tended to define it very narrowly. A defendant was generally found guilty only if he had been involved in developing the policy, but not if he had simply carried it out.

Critics have also termed the trials an act of vengeance by the victors and questioned their practical use as a precedent. Personal liability for national action is very difficult to prove conclusively, and a nation will be reluctant to try its own leaders. Therefore, effective prosecution may be possible only if a nation is defeated (and then perhaps only if the documents are captured, as they were after World War II).

Both critics and supporters of the U.S. role in the Vietnam War have justified their positions on the basis of the post–World War II trials. Several Americans were tried for war crimes in this war, and Lt. William Calley was found guilty (see My Lai incident) of particularly disturbing acts against civilians that for many became emblematic of the horrors of the Vietnam conflict. In the 1990s, in reaction to war atrocities committed by various parties during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the United Nations established a tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands, and attempted to gather evidence for prosecutions; Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have been charged, including top civilian and military Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders. The highest ranking official to be tried is former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milošević, whose trial began in 2002. In 2000 the Hague tribunal officially established rape, which was rampant during the Yugoslav civil strife, as a war crime. A UN tribunal was also set up in Tanzania to try those responsible for Hutu massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and in Sierra Leone to try persons accused of atrocities in that country's civil war (1991–2001).................................

................................ In 1998 the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a treaty authorizing a permanent international court for war crimes. The United States, China, and five other nations opposed the treaty, and 21 nations abstained. The treaty has been signed by more than 130 nations (including the United States), and formally came into effect in July, 2002; the judges of the court were formally sworn in in 2003. Called the International Criminal Court and located at The Hague, it may prosecute war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. Under the G. W. Bush administration, the United States opposed implementation of the treaty, out of fear that American officials or military personnel might be arrested abroad on baseless charges. In May, 2002, the United States repudiated its signing of the treaty and indicated that it would refuse to cooperate with the court. The U.S. government subsequently insisted (2002, 2003) that U.S. forces used as UN peacekeepers be exempted from prosecution by the court, and in 2003 it suspended military aid to nations that did not similarly exempt U.S. citizens serving within their borders. In 2004, following the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, the United States was unable to secure a further exemption from the United Nations.............

..............The legalities of war have sometimes been accused of containing favoritism toward the winners, as certain controversies have not been ruled as war crimes. Some examples include the United States' destruction of civilian targets during World War I and World War II and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. Others cite the Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999.

Answers.com

The biggest offending for repetive charges of having commited war crimes is the US - who has the US apologized to for the crimes they have commited?

UK violates International Law

In September 2005, Amnesty International wrote to the UK authorities to express concern regarding their failure to arrest Israeli army General Doron Almog at London’s Heathrow airport on Sunday 11 September 2005 pursuant to the arrest warrant against General Almog issued by a member of the judiciary the previous day for his involvement in alleged war crimes.

General Almog landed at Heathrow airport on 11 September on a flight from Tel Aviv. However, he declined to disembark from the aircraft, apparently after being informed that he could be arrested. Meanwhile, police officers failed to enter the plane to arrest the general and allowed him to depart from the UK for Israel aboard the same El Al aircraft on which he had arrived. At the same time, members of the Israeli embassy staff were reportedly allowed on board the aircraft. In media interviews after his return to Israel, General Almog stated that the military attaché of the Israeli Embassy in London was allowed to board the El Al aircraft to meet him, and had advised him not to leave the aircraft and to return to Israel immediately.

Amnesty International has called on the UK authorities to conduct an investigation to ascertain how the information was obtained and communicated to General Almog.

Major General Almog was the head of the Israeli army's Southern Command, an area that includes the Gaza Strip, between December 2000 and July 2003. He is accused of involvement in the destruction of 59 Palestinian homes by the Israeli army in a refugee camp in Rafah on 10 January 2002. The arrest warrant against General Almog was issued at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. The matter was then placed in the hands of the Anti-Terrorist and War Crimes Unit of the Metropolitan Police.

Amnesty International
Citizens for Global Solutions welcomes the decision of UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to bring charges under Britain’s International Criminal Court (ICC) Act of 2001 against three British soldiers accused of atrocities in Iraq. Lord Goldsmith’s action demonstrates the UK’s commitment to upholding rule of law on the basis of their domestic legislation.

“While the soldiers are being charged under the 2001 International Criminal Court Act, they are not being charged by the ICC in the Hague but rather under the British courts martial system according to British law.

why?

France Must Investigate Alleged War Crimes

Aussaresses Revelations Suggest Policy of Abuse, Says Rights Group

(05/16/01) -- The French government should launch an official investigation into allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by French forces in Algeria, Human Rights Watch said today.

Who then is qualified to sit on the UN Security Council? In your opinion.

I'm laughing. After killing all these innocent civilians in a world war and whitewashing their students, they want to join a group of nations promoting human rights and peace. Damn it's too funny
Maybe its time to stop laughing and take a history course or two so you dont make this kind of ill informed comment again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's make Canada a member! We're a pretty sensible country. No war crimes that I can think of (except maybe what we did to the Natives).

We are in the security council rotation, just not a veto power. I don't think we are current sitting, but we were previously many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO Japan has been needlesly suffering from the legacy of WW2 for far too long, and because Japan has been suffering the rest of the world has also suffered. It is an unfortunate fact that the Japanese Emporer never appologized for the Actions of Japan in WW2, but in recent times the Japanese Prime Minister has appologized for the legacy of war crimes left behind by his country. What is a comforting fact is that since WW2 Japan has emerged as a bankroller of International missions of Peace, they currently are the second largest funder of the United Nations. It may infact be wise to ask ourselves if we would prefer to have members on the security council who put their money where their mouths are. As Japan provides more funding to the United Nations then Britain, China, Russia, and France combined.

Japan may have a poor record sixty years ago, but the question has to be asked what are you doing now? And when it comes to crimes against Humanity it is laughable not to bring up China. The United Nations has been attempting to push the philosophy of sustianable devlopment and environmental stewardship, again it is a laughable concept to not questions China's position in such an organization, China is a country fairly well known for crimes against humanity and as a country it possess 17(?) of the words 20 most polluted cities.

Japan is in a position now where they should be taking on a larger role in world affairs and I would be more then happy to welcome them into the fold of "international policemen". I would like to see Japan remove article nine from its constitution and start to play a bigger role in the affairs of this world and become more then just a stock broker for peace, a part of this should include permanent membership ont eh U.N security council.

We can all have reservations about Japanese History texts books and the lack of appologies from the Japanese politicians in the past. I would agree that it would be nice to see more activism on the front of correcting past wrongs, tragedies, and war crimes.

But I believe we must look to the present, we are living in an increasingly volatile world and Japan is more then Capable of becoming an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" of peace. I see no reason why we should be limiting the involvement of such a country in world affairs . A country that is perhaps one of the worlds greater humanitarian nations. Yes many years ago they made alot of mistakes, but I do not believe it is neccasary that we shoot ourselves in the foot at the present because of past wrongs. Especially considering the fact that at the present there are wrongs, atrocities, and human rights violations being commited all over the world. There is no need to get hung up on the past, especially if it means hanging ourselves in the present. And Japan is an ally I would be happy to see take a bigger role in world affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Security Council is ever expanded, I'd support Japan's membership. There are entire continents that are not represented as permanent members. The parties who established the UN believed Britain and France would be representing not only their homelands but also their colonial holdings in Africa, Asia and Oceania.

In addition to Japan, I can see an argument for including India and perhaps a more economically-free Muslim country, like Indonesia. I also think South Africa and perhaps Argentina could be added to round out the global nature of the council. Of course, with more members, the rule that allows a single vetoing member to thwart action would need to change. Perhaps they could amend the rule to 3/5 majority rule or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is a country fairly well known for crimes against humanity and as a country it possess 17(?) of the words 20 most polluted cities.

China is held hostage by its dependence on fossil fuel, namely coal for power production and heat. They are attempting to develop alternatives, recently dammed the Yahngtze River to produce hydro power that created a great deal of contraversy in its own country and abroad. Many people felt it was wrong to dam this amazing river - but they have so few alterntives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is a country fairly well known for crimes against humanity and as a country it possess 17(?) of the words 20 most polluted cities.

China is held hostage by its dependence on fossil fuel, namely coal for power production and heat. They are attempting to develop alternatives, recently dammed the Yahngtze River to produce hydro power that created a great deal of contraversy in its own country and abroad. Many people felt it was wrong to dam this amazing river - but they have so few alterntives.

Listen I am not here to start a debate about China's environmental record, that would be getting a little to far off topic, I simply asking why hold a country like Japan to a standard that no other country can meet. Japan has more then prooven themselves as a respectable member of the world community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a laughable concept to not questions China's position in such an organization, China is a country fairly well known for crimes against humanity and as a country it possess 17(?) of the words 20 most polluted cities.
China is held hostage by its dependence on fossil fuel, namely coal for power production and heat. They are attempting to develop alternatives, recently dammed the Yahngtze River to produce hydro power that created a great deal of contraversy in its own country and abroad. Many people felt it was wrong to dam this amazing river - but they have so few alterntives
Listen I am not here to start a debate about China's environmental record, that would be getting a little to far off topic

You're the one who brought it up in the first place.as a reason to question their suitability ... :rolleyes Funny how is someone responds to a comment made by you that person is "off topic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a laughable concept to not questions China's position in such an organization, China is a country fairly well known for crimes against humanity and as a country it possess 17(?) of the words 20 most polluted cities.
China is held hostage by its dependence on fossil fuel, namely coal for power production and heat. They are attempting to develop alternatives, recently dammed the Yahngtze River to produce hydro power that created a great deal of contraversy in its own country and abroad. Many people felt it was wrong to dam this amazing river - but they have so few alterntives
Listen I am not here to start a debate about China's environmental record, that would be getting a little to far off topic

You're the one who brought it up in the first place.as a reason to question their suitability ... :rolleyes Funny how is someone responds to a comment made by you that person is "off topic".

I brought up China's record on human rights and the environment in a way that fits with both my post and this thread, that is wether or not Japan deserves a seat on the U.N security council. On the otherhand you never actually argued agaisnt my claim that Japan deserves a seat on the U.N security council. You never even used your rebuttal in a manner to show why Japan shouldn't be allowed to join the U.N security council. also I never said we were off topic, I said that if we started a debate about China's environmental record, with no concern for wether Japan deserves a seat in the U.N security council, we would be going a bit to far off topic. If you looked at the sentence below that you would understand that it was raised to point out that we are holding Japan to a standard no country can fully meet. If you looked at my post previous to that you would see it was focused on why Japan should be a member of the U.N security council and why we shouldn't focus solely on actions many years int eh past. your "rebuttal" to my post never once even mentioned Japan, never once attempted to bring Japan into the debate. It attempted to take Japan out of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the otherhand you never actually argued agaisnt my claim that Japan deserves a seat on the U.N security council. You never even used your rebuttal in a manner to show why Japan shouldn't be allowed to join the U.N security council. also I never said we were off topic,

The forum is for an open discussion and posters are not restricted to responsing to ONLY YOUR COMMENTS and opinions. However it WAS your assanince comment that I responded to ... with a perefectly reasonable and informed rebuttal to YOUR comment about polluted cities in China

NO I didnt use a rebuttal to show WHY Japan shouldnt be allowed on the council because I DONT AGREE WITH YOU,

If THESE previous posts arent a rebuttal to your post I dont know what the hell is I dont see how or why environmental factors deserve ANY comment when discussing the Security Council , but to make the post and then get bent out of shape if someone responds pointing out the reason behind your objection is a tad over the top.

Posted Jul 5 2006, 11:39 PM

I am not sure but I think the only member sitting on the present council who hasnt been charged for war crimes might be Denmark - but as I said I am not sure about that.

US has been charged with multiple war crimes, in one war after another, do they belong on the council?

Initial Complaint

Charging

George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,

Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,

Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named

With Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against

Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in

Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,

International Law, the Constitution of the United States

and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

QUOTE

Critics have questioned the legal basis of some of the charges at the post–World War II trials. Individuals were found guilty of acts considered legal, or even required, by their nation at the time; such findings represent a violation of the concept of sovereignty. The plotting or carrying out of aggressive war had not been previously and explicitly called criminal, and the judges tended to define it very narrowly. A defendant was generally found guilty only if he had been involved in developing the policy, but not if he had simply carried it out.

Critics have also termed the trials an act of vengeance by the victors and questioned their practical use as a precedent. Personal liability for national action is very difficult to prove conclusively, and a nation will be reluctant to try its own leaders. Therefore, effective prosecution may be possible only if a nation is defeated (and then perhaps only if the documents are captured, as they were after World War II).

Both critics and supporters of the U.S. role in the Vietnam War have justified their positions on the basis of the post–World War II trials. Several Americans were tried for war crimes in this war, and Lt. William Calley was found guilty (see My Lai incident) of particularly disturbing acts against civilians that for many became emblematic of the horrors of the Vietnam conflict. In the 1990s, in reaction to war atrocities committed by various parties during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the United Nations established a tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands, and attempted to gather evidence for prosecutions; Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have been charged, including top civilian and military Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders. The highest ranking official to be tried is former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milošević, whose trial began in 2002. In 2000 the Hague tribunal officially established rape, which was rampant during the Yugoslav civil strife, as a war crime. A UN tribunal was also set up in Tanzania to try those responsible for Hutu massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and in Sierra Leone to try persons accused of atrocities in that country's civil war (1991–2001).................................

................................ In 1998 the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a treaty authorizing a permanent international court for war crimes. The United States, China, and five other nations opposed the treaty, and 21 nations abstained. The treaty has been signed by more than 130 nations (including the United States), and formally came into effect in July, 2002; the judges of the court were formally sworn in in 2003. Called the International Criminal Court and located at The Hague, it may prosecute war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. Under the G. W. Bush administration, the United States opposed implementation of the treaty, out of fear that American officials or military personnel might be arrested abroad on baseless charges. In May, 2002, the United States repudiated its signing of the treaty and indicated that it would refuse to cooperate with the court. The U.S. government subsequently insisted (2002, 2003) that U.S. forces used as UN peacekeepers be exempted from prosecution by the court, and in 2003 it suspended military aid to nations that did not similarly exempt U.S. citizens serving within their borders. In 2004, following the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, the United States was unable to secure a further exemption from the United Nations.............

..............The legalities of war have sometimes been accused of containing favoritism toward the winners, as certain controversies have not been ruled as war crimes. Some examples include the United States' destruction of civilian targets during World War I and World War II and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. Others cite the Indonesian occupation of East Timor between 1976 and 1999.

Answers.com

The biggest offending for repetive charges of having commited war crimes is the US - who has the US apologized to for the crimes they have commited?

UK violates International Law

QUOTE

In September 2005, Amnesty International wrote to the UK authorities to express concern regarding their failure to arrest Israeli army General Doron Almog at London’s Heathrow airport on Sunday 11 September 2005 pursuant to the arrest warrant against General Almog issued by a member of the judiciary the previous day for his involvement in alleged war crimes.

General Almog landed at Heathrow airport on 11 September on a flight from Tel Aviv. However, he declined to disembark from the aircraft, apparently after being informed that he could be arrested. Meanwhile, police officers failed to enter the plane to arrest the general and allowed him to depart from the UK for Israel aboard the same El Al aircraft on which he had arrived. At the same time, members of the Israeli embassy staff were reportedly allowed on board the aircraft. In media interviews after his return to Israel, General Almog stated that the military attaché of the Israeli Embassy in London was allowed to board the El Al aircraft to meet him, and had advised him not to leave the aircraft and to return to Israel immediately.

Amnesty International has called on the UK authorities to conduct an investigation to ascertain how the information was obtained and communicated to General Almog.

Major General Almog was the head of the Israeli army's Southern Command, an area that includes the Gaza Strip, between December 2000 and July 2003. He is accused of involvement in the destruction of 59 Palestinian homes by the Israeli army in a refugee camp in Rafah on 10 January 2002. The arrest warrant against General Almog was issued at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. The matter was then placed in the hands of the Anti-Terrorist and War Crimes Unit of the Metropolitan Police.

Amnesty International

QUOTE

Citizens for Global Solutions welcomes the decision of UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to bring charges under Britain’s International Criminal Court (ICC) Act of 2001 against three British soldiers accused of atrocities in Iraq. Lord Goldsmith’s action demonstrates the UK’s commitment to upholding rule of law on the basis of their domestic legislation.

“While the soldiers are being charged under the 2001 International Criminal Court Act, they are not being charged by the ICC in the Hague but rather under the British courts martial system according to British law.

why?

QUOTE

France Must Investigate Alleged War Crimes

Aussaresses Revelations Suggest Policy of Abuse, Says Rights Group

(05/16/01) -- The French government should launch an official investigation into allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by French forces in Algeria, Human Rights Watch said today.

Who then is qualified to sit on the UN Security Council? In your opinion.
QUOTE

I'm laughing. After killing all these innocent civilians in a world war and whitewashing their students, they want to join a group of nations promoting human rights and peace. Damn it's too funny

Maybe its time to stop laughing and take a history course or two so you dont make this kind of ill informed comment again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure but I think the only member sitting on the present council who hasnt been charged for war crimes might be Denmark - but as I said I am not sure about that.

I'm still stinging about the Vikings. My sister's red hair is testament to their crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen apparently we are both arguing the same thing. I brought up China as an example of a country that in its history has done a poor job living up to the ideal of the united nations. To say China is held hostage and is changing doesn't even affect my point. Being that if we were going to base who belongs on the permanent council based on past deeds then historicaly it would be pretty laughable not to consider other countries, particularly China. Now as you have said China is changing. Well thats nice, if someone were arguing that Japan should be barred from permanent security council membership because of past actions despite the enormous change it would be highly hipocritical. my point regarding China was not to bring up where they are going but to look at where they have been/are. You post never really even contested that point, simply pointing out they had little choice and were changing. Which may be true but that really doesn't apply to what I am saying when I argue that we should not be judging nations based on their past actions because everyone has a skeleton in their closet. Now I recognize that my original reply to your post may have been a little harsh and for that I appologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...