Goldie Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Today I subjected myself to the call in show on the CBC. Topic was Arar being tortured in syria. All they could talk about was how the " bastards" deported this man to Syria. Not the fact that Syria commited the unthinkable and that Canada aided the American descision. This also ocurred later in question period as yet another exuse to American bash. John Harvard was the mouth peice of the Liberals and is a Martin supporter. Do we really think that this anti Americanism will diminish under Martin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 God I feel sorry that you listened to the CBC for more than 10 minutes. It does hurt the mind and apparently will cause blood clots. No, Anti-Americanism will be the same under Martin. Demagoguery and hating Jews and Americans plays well apparently to various constituents. The CBC should be censored and closed down for its role in propagating the nauseating veiwpoint that Cdns are superior. I don't see individual ministers under Martin turning down the anti-US volume unless Martin starts to fire people. I doubt he will do this. Such small minded nationalism is sickening and leads to unnecessary friction. Canada does little to support its allies, engages in free loading off the US and has no core values which it deems necessary to protect other than socialised health care and redistribution. At the very least Cdns and their imbecilic representatives should have the common sense to keep their mouths shut. The Syrian case deals with a suspected terrorist, what does the CBC expect ? A medal for a man who apparently had deep links with various terrorists ? What a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 No, Anti-Americanism will be the same under Martin. Anti Americanism seems to be on the rise in Canada, check out this web site. http://discuss.50plus.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate...gi?action=intro in particular the politics forum. The venom and pathalogical hatred towards Bush and the States is almost hysterical. Any comment about politics seems to result in and an Anti US Bush tirade. The US is not a perfect society but which one is? Who else would we rather have for a neighbour? While I and I'm sure most people don't agree with everything, I just have to shake my head in amazement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 The venom and pathalogical hatred towards Bush and the States is almost hysterical. Any comment about politics seems to result in and an Anti US Bush tirade. I agree. The baffling thing is that when the US was supporting despots in Latin America, average Canadians were practically silent. I guess we're always a little behind the times up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Hi Michael, the Central American analogy is false. In Grenada, Guatemala, El Salv. and Nic. the US supported pro Western and anti-communist gov'ts. Yes these govts were far from ideal, but if the US went in and imposed an Iraqi style occupation the Cdn media would have been howling in rage along with the liberal nitwits in the States. Don't believe the liberal media in their depiction of these events, they are wrong. As for US bashing, it is a sick psychosis that points to racism, and lack of self esteem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 There's more Canada-bashing than anybody seems to care to admit. I don't need to supply proof, just read all the postings. About this particular one, which is related to Maher Arar, you all find the treatment acceptable? That the RCMP turned over information about Maher Arar to the US? That the US kidnapped the man? That Homeland Security's reach crosses international borders? That Syria (whom the US had noted harbours terrorists) cooperated with the US? That all of this is legitimate under the Patriot Act? And the only blame you find is with those Canadians who question American antics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Hi Michael, the Central American analogy is false. I don't think I made an analogy. In Grenada, Guatemala, El Salv. and Nic. the US supported pro Western and anti-communist gov'ts. Yes these govts were far from ideal, but if the US went in and imposed an Iraqi style occupation the Cdn media would have been howling in rage along with the liberal nitwits in the States. "Far from ideal" can mean a lot of things. You seem to be from the "end justifies the means" camp, which I am not. I don't think dropping flaming drums of gasoline on women and children in Nicaragua is a justification for keeping communism at bay. Nor do I think that suppression of the press, or restriction of travel is justified to strengthen socialism. Don't believe the liberal media in their depiction of these events, they are wrong. The evidence that these things happened is compelling, maybe even airtight. As for US bashing, it is a sick psychosis that points to racism, and lack of self esteem. I'm not sure about racism, but certainly xenophobia. There's a certain Canadian smugness that seems to have grown lately, and I don't think it's warranted. There are some things that Canada does better, and some things that the US does better but IMO there's no evidence that the average American and the average Canadian are completely different animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 I agree with the above. A lot of the world is concerned with the US's recent troubling actions, but a lot of that concern has turned to downright hate. There's no excuse. It's just an imaginary line between us and Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted November 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 No Americans to bash in the Sampson case so call the victim guilty instead of confronting the abusers. Where is the visceral response toward the Saudis like we saw towards the American government in our house of commons yesterday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost in Manitoba Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Is there not an international law that prohibits a government from deporting a person to a country where it is likely he will be tortured? Forget about all the little details of this case. This is the one fact that is clear cut. The US deported a 'suspect' to a country where he would be tortured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 1. Craig, I agree that anti-Americanism has its roots in "racism," nurtured by our own tax-supported state run Commie network news. That is to say some Canadians hate Americans for just being American, like some people hate blacks for their colour. But this very same America-hating Canucks can't wait to drive down to Palm Springs or Palm Beach to spend 6 months each year enjoying the warmth and hospitality of America. The second largest population of French-Canadians outside Quebec is in Florida...funny, eh? With regards to CBC, here's an insider bit of info that's a sad irony...do you know what news position is most coveted by CBC'ers? Answer: being transferred to the CBC news bureau in Washington, D.C. So the very same CBC'ers who malign Bush 24/7 and the USA at 10 pm news can hardly wait to get their keesters out of Paradise Canada and move to Black Satan country. The second reason you stated for anti-Americanism...lack of self-esteem? Maybe you're being too kind to say what I see as being obvious...I believe many Canadians feel unadultered, gut wrenching, green monster "envy" of a neighbour who is many times more successful, powerful, affluent, inventive, influential, self-sufficient, patriotic than this country is. And as the USA gains in afore-mentioned areas, the ugly green monster grows in the hearts of many Canadians, but cloaks itself in more politically correct terms like: indignation at US unilateralism, dismay and concern about world peace and stability...you get the picture. So the only way I see for anti-Americanism to die off is for America to become less enviable...that is, more a welfare state like Canada, so the grass is not greener south of the border and everyone is the same ho-hum, unmotivated, feed me, sleepy head kind of socialist. That could happen with a Hillary Presidential victory. The election of Paul Martin will not change the government's anti-American stance. Don't let Paul Martin's businessman image deceive any of you into thinking that he is any less a socialist than Chretien. As someone else rightly pointed out in another post, Paul Martin learned all his political views at the knee of his mentor, Maurice Strong, who embodies the term "noblesse oblige." People like Strong and Martin secured their material wealth due to capitalism and globalization and they protect their personal billions fiercely in offshore tax havens. But they feel guilty for their ways - after all they have souls and deep feelings for humanity - so it's folks like Martin and Strong who will use YOUR tax dollars to pay for "noble programs to help the poor of the world" to salve their inner angst for being so personally "superior" and "filthy rich." Paul Martin will move Canada even closer to UN world government goals, which, in turn, will move Canada farther from its former long standing ally, the USA. That's my prediction, for what it's worth. 2. Scriblett, You were right about blatant and mis-informed anti-American invective on discuss.50plus.com forum, at least as demonstrated by the most recent posts. Thankfully, it appeared to me that there were only two or three dominant female anti-Yank cheerleaders who filled the bandwidth. One saving grace for me was picking up on an article by Barbara Amiel that was posted on this same site by a brave soul who attempted to quiet the shrill voices, but to no avail. Amiel zeros in on why the anti-Americanism fervour has become more pronounced with the election of Bush. The Left have an irrational, visceral hatred for the man. See if you agree/disagree with Amiel's analysis. Barbara Amiel on why the Left hate Bush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Lost: Is there not an international law ... Sure but (as noted in George Bush's resume): *I refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. *I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from its Human Rights Commission. So who's going to enforce international law? About Canada-bashing: Please see Morgan's post as a prime example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Daniel, Your 2 points about Bush's "resume" only serve to remind folks of Bush's presidential leadership skills and his no nonsense clear thinking regarding the hypocracies perpetuated under the name of the UN. #1. Bush not recognizing the "jurisdiction" of the hallowed World Court, better known by the acronymn, ICC. Hee, hee. The ICC is a joke, a sham. Who, but the EU and an EU wannabe like Chretien would happily sign off on their sovereign judicial jurisdictions? And let's look at the efficiency that " world justice" is dispatched through the endeavours of the ICC. For example, how many years has it been that Milosevic has been "on trial" while ICC Justices and their humongous entourage of attendent staff [some of whom hail from Canada]have their fun shopping in European clothing boutiques or frequenting the Red Light District when they're not listening gravely to testimony??? Fyi, Bush did not unilaterally reject the ICC without bi-partisan support - even bleeding heart Clinton recommended that the ICC was flawed and should not be ratified by Congress. Bush followed through on what was a DOA concept. America leads by leaving the ICC. "...The Bush administration's decision to renounce the treaty creating a permanent international criminal court, or ICC, has been met with howls of indignation.With "history" and "all multilateral endeavors" on the line, what must the Bush administration be thinking? Such dire rhetoric, however, is not supported by the facts. A closer look at these anti-Bush criticisms instead reveals a willingness to ignore inconvenient facts and a perverse understanding of the concept of leadership. For starters, it should be recalled that opposition to the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has been bipartisan and predates President Bush's arrival in Washington. And in early 2001 President Bill Clinton said that the International Criminal Court treaty had "significant flaws," and recommended that the incoming Bush administration not submit it for Senate ratification unless and until U.S. concerns were resolved. The Bush administration has apparently concluded that the ICC treaty is beyond repair and that no amount of fine-tuning will correct its flaws. Most troubling, however, is the muddled understanding the president's critics have of the concept of leadership. Indeed, the president's critics seem to believe that it is an expression of American leadership to go along with treaties that are flawed, like the International Criminal Court, and treaties that are contrary to U.S. national interests, like the Kyoto Protocol. By that logic, following the bad policies of other countries is a form of American leadership. True leadership, however, is something different than the president's critics imagine. True leadership means pursuing policies that are in America's national interest, and persuading other countries that the policies are in their national interest too. It does not mean, as some of the president's critics contend, doing things because they will make other countries happy. That's what we might more accurately call "followership." 2. Re: under Bush's Admin. the USA was "kicked off" the UN Human Rights Commission. Wow, that's some accomplishment for Bush, I'd say. For the USA to find itself alienated from stellar human rights nations that chair and have positions on the HRC is not to be ignored. Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. Umm...let's go down the list of nations that populate the sacred orb of the HRC. For starters, there's Col. Muammar Gaddafi's regime[ err..country], Libya, as Chair, but let's not forget other "stars" like my personal favourites who stand out as standard bearers for human rights...the Congo, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia,South Africa, and last but not least, Syria. Waiting in the wings to claim their positions on the HRC next year are Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Uganda. This assortment of thug led nations, Daniel, are who "kicked" the USA off the HRC. Bravo, USA! Btw, even international human rights organizations are peeved at the sorry examples of human rights abuser nations who serve on the HRC. Anger at UN role for rights violators 3. Regarding your claim that I was Canada bashing in a previous post...I notice that you have no arguments that might disprove my invalid, meritless, hurtful, "bashing" opinions... Fyi, I am Canadian so I think I have the right to address the "warts" and "foibles" I perceive in the pervasive anti-American invective that's taking hold of my countrymen. Whereas, I think it's rather inappropriate for Canadians to bash people in another country, a long standing ally on many fronts, while at the same time enjoying, taking advantage of the hospitality and generosity of the country they so hate and disrespect. This is not the kind of Canada I grew up in and I'm frankly ashamed of the emotionally charged, visceral hatred for America that I now read or hear so frequently. It's unbecoming to the great nation Canada once was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Not sure what era you grew up in but as far back as 1776, Canada/US relations hadn't been exactly peachy. Benjamin Franklin hated Canadians and I'm not going to get into why the CPR was built by (of all people) the Conservatives. The only era I can think of where the relationship was fair was during Mulroney's era. But Reagan didn't think much of him while he kept trying to kiss a$$. (Imagine that - being looked down by Reagan!!) The good ole days, huh? So, you find everything to do with Arar acceptable? I don't - and that goes for both sides of the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Daniel, 1. Don't you think it's curious that Chretien has been stalling a public enquiry to his own government's part in Arar being sent to Syria? Even Paul Martin is calling for an inquiry. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a/arar_chretien "Martin calls for an explanation on Arar case; Chretien looks to US" Nov.06, 2003 As I recall from previous press reports, the USA prevented Arar from visiting their country due to a tip from the RCMP/or CSIS that Arar had been monitored in Canada as a possible terrorist. And after the USA wanted to send Arar back to Canada, as is their right to protect their nation's borders from undesirable visitors, officials from aforementioned Canadian departments did not want Arar back. Since Arar is a Syrian national still holding Syrian citizenship, along with Canadian naturalized citizenship, the USA sent Arar to Syria as the second choice that was available to them. What do think the USA was supposed to do - put Mr. Arar up at the Four Seasons until such time that Canada changed its mind? Would that Chretien put as much energy to speaking out on the sad cases of the journalist being beaten to death in Iran or to Mr. Sampson being tortured for several years in Syria or to the little minister guy who was jailed in Lebanon and threatened beheading for wanting to plant apple trees there. 2. Fyi, the USA and Canada have fought in several wars together, have the longest undefended border between each other in the world, and Canada's economy is 40% richer due to US business. I think that speaks well for a long standing good relationship on many fronts. What generation I've grown up is an irrelevant comment when speaking about an historically enduring alliance between the USA and Canada. But Chretien has gone out of his way to undermine this fine relationship and he has personally nurtured as well as role modeled an anti-American mindset that is even worse than what occured with similar posturing by Pierre E. Trudeau. This time the bile of one Canadian politician has infected a good number of Canadian laymen. I think that's very wrong and selfish on the part of Chretien. A politician like Chretien comes and goes, but an historical bond/alliance like what Canada and the USA had is something unique and should be cherished, not destroyed by a self-serving mortal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 america is despised largely for its policies on sept 11th 1973 the CIA assisted a coup in chile in which lists of opposition leaders were drawn up and they were summerly exectuted. thousands and thousands died. that is terrorism. that is one of many examples of american police. that is why america deserves all the bashing it gets. america buys billions in oil from saudi arabia, but lectures iran on democracy? the same iran the CIA supported a british coup in 1953 for oil rights and the same iran that the US sold weapons to for killing iraqis. yet continue to support the corrupt saudi dictators in exchange for the power of their energy. america has engaged in just as much terrorism as any other nation, only they hide it better. if they want to be treated with the respect their think they deserve, they should act like it and act in true humanitarian and democatic interests, not just pay lip service and photo ops. SirRiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Sir Riff, a. The USA is the largest donor to the UN for humanitarian efforts. As well, apart from ongoing UN financial support, the USA just coughed up $15 Billion to fight AIDS in Africa and $87 Billion for re-construction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. b. Were it not for the USA intervening and bringing to bear its fire power and manpower in the the most recent World War, there'd be no "democracy" in this world. We'd all be speaking German as citizens of a facist empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Sir Riff,a. The USA is the largest donor to the UN for humanitarian efforts. As well, apart from ongoing UN financial support, the USA just coughed up $15 Billion to fight AIDS in Africa and $87 Billion for re-construction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. b. Were it not for the USA intervening and bringing to bear its fire power and manpower in the the most recent World War, there'd be no "democracy" in this world. We'd all be speaking German as citizens of a facist empire. Most recent world war? well technically how do you coem to that conclusion? Is it a historical fact? Or just soem propaganda that you feal makes sense to most people? For it to be a historical fact you would really have to proove hitler's intentions to take over the world, as far as most know his original attentions were Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, it wasn't until he invaded poland that britian, france, and allies declared war. That is when hitler destroyed Western Europe...he did say he wasn't interested in France it was full of French, but okay lets not give him the benifiet of the doubt after all it is hitler. Next we would have to proove his ability to make it to lets say Canada, could he make it? NO!!!! Why? Britain, Germany didn't have the Navy....to take on the British...so they would first have to be able to take on britians navy then transport troops over to fight in Canada.We are not talking an invasion of normandy from Britain we are talking an invasion of Canada From France. At that tiem canada had one of the top 5 Air forces in the world...one of the top 5 navy's in the world. Next Germany Would be way to spread out...think about it...if Canadians knew Germany was sending troops to invade...dont you think an awfull lot of people would pick up a gun to fight? Then to do that they owuld have to send troops to canada obviously..if they sent troops they leave Europe defenseless...they leave there heart undefended, bam KO, Allies win. So in all honesty, what you said is not true, about the world speaking German, and beign under fascist control, its what I would call lies, propaganda. Next 87 billion for RE-consturction of Afgahnistan and Iraq....yes how honourable of them....who invaded iraq again? and where are there WOMD? $15 billion to fight aids in Africa is a noble cause no arguement here...but agian how about the exploitation of resources in third world countries, by the U.S? (I do realize other countries do the same) The U.S is the largest donnor to the U.N for humanitarion aid. Yes of course it is, why? It has the largest and most powerful Economy in the world, the State of Calafornia has a higher GDP then the country of Canada, so are we talking percentages here or actual $$$$ figures? Next...you are so pro-American you are blind to Canada, you fail to see Canada has its own needs and own values. A-M-E-R-I-C-A, C-A-N-A-D-A *i will help you out here...notice how the spelling is different? so is all other aspects, Population, Foriegn policy, Imagration policy, Environmental standards and policy, Scoial policy....they are all different. Whats wrogn with different? Nothing. Who cares if we are not America's Lap dog....If America says Jump, and we dotnw ant to we should Say NO! not how high....This is Canada not America, and what is right for America is not always right for Canada. We shoudl stick up for our country and our people. Look at syria where that man was tortured, look in Iran there is a dead Canadian journalist burried there, look at lebanon where there was another Canadian imprisoned..and has made claims of being tortured. No ogvernment (except Iraq) would do this to America now a days and that is becuase they assert themselves, and we should to, and that means asserting our interests even if it means making the U.S Angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 . The USA is the largest donor to the UN for humanitarian efforts.As well, apart from ongoing UN financial support, the USA just coughed up $15 Billion to fight AIDS in Africa and $87 Billion for re-construction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. the US is also the largest reaper of dictators. the US freely gave $3 BILLION in arms and training to osama bin ladens rebels to fight the russians. you think that was a humanitarian gesture? no, it was to make sure the US would get the stable oil flow from the middle east. how did they meddle in the middle east? they gave weapons to saddam to kill iranians, and gave weapons to iran to kill iraqis. gee that doesnt sound humanitarian. so the US gave billions of $$ worth of weapons to get tens of billions in oil. you want a medal for that? and now giving a few billon to the US makes them heroes? what about the nations they helped to destroy? afganistan didnt just get leveled by itself. russia and the US played thier little game over it and kills millions and destroyed the nation. so giving a few billion here and there is nothing compared to the suffering they were involved with. at least Russia doesnt pretend to be some moral humanitarian nation. as for the 87$ billion, it doesnt take a genius to figure out the US has bombed iraq twice, and been the main defending of devestating sanctions on iraq. so yeah it makes sense they put forth the most money considering they are occupying it. not to mention in the first gulf war Japan wrote a 10B$ check for its part and it wasnt even on the ground. .b. Were it not for the USA intervening and bringing to bear its fire power and manpower in the the most recent World War, there'd be no "democracy" in this world. We'd all be speaking German as citizens of a facist empire. actually if it wasnt for britian or russia or any number of men dying in that war germany would have won. the war raged while the US sat on the sidelines protected. if germany had been beside teh US they too would have been blitzkreiged into submission. europe did not have the luxory of oceans and were faced with a superior and fanatical enemy. without britian or russia germany might have held all of europe without america even getting involved letting them rebuild and become a modern superpower. who knows. but one thing if for sure, but because the US came in last does not mean they were the only crucial nation. not by far. war if different when its on your own soil. americans saw that on 9/11 and that was only 3000 people and 19 enemies. imagine what europe saw when armies raped and pillaged their countries one by one. no country alone could have stopped them. SirRiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Slavik 44 and Sir Riff, I admit I used poetic license when I said we could have all ended up speaking German. We'll never know if Germany would have made a move on North America after conquering Europe. But my post was a response to Sir Riff's comments, wherein he said that the USA should act in "true humanitarian and democratic interests." You can't deny that a turning point in the allies fight against the axis powers was when the USA entered the picture. Admitting that fact does not take away from the efforts of Russia and Britain and Canada. But victory looked uncertain for Europe until the Yanks threw their hats in. I'd say their decision was a very signifigant action in the name of "democratic interests." Why else? The USA could have continued to sit the war out. Some historians have suggested that the President knew in advance about the Pearl Harbor attack but took no defensive tact, because he needed an "attack" by an axis power to justify America's entry into the war. He saw this war was a fight between democracy and facism and as such it was a good war for America to fight. With regards to the USA's generosity, just because the Yanks have the largest, most successful economy in the world, how does that compel them to give 2 cents to the UN? Do you think that Americans get that successful economy resting on their laurels with Fate handing it to them on a platter? The USA could choose to spend every last dime of profits the country earns on their own people. Actually, some Americans think that with the current anti-American bile that's so pervasive in the UN, the USA should not be so generous with foreign aid and UN dues. It certainly doesn't buy them any good will. What exactly does the USA get out of keeping the UN afloat, because you have to realize that the USA is single most generous nation to that pathetic organization. As for Iraq, the USA has completed its job of ousting Saddam and its precision bombing has not caused much structural damage. The aged Iraqi infa-structure is a result of Saddam mis-spending oil money on his palaces and military. The USA is not to blame for his selfishness. Besides, the UN is bleating that the USA should give Iraq back to the people and let them run the country. So based on that request alone, there's no need for the US taxpayers to fork over $20 Billion. As for Afghanistan, let's get real, there was never anything there, so bombing a bunch of caves doesn't exactly require the USA to pay for "re-construction." It sticks like a craw in one's throat to admit that all the $ that the Yanks are focusing on Afghanistan and Iraq and Africa and many other countries is actually pretty darn generous of them. Fyi, $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa is more than chump change. How many other countries - the rich EU, for example - even comes close to that figure? As for claiming that the US is the biggest "reaper of dictators"..err, so if it weren't for the USA, the trains of the world would be running on time and we'd all be singing kumbyejah across all the time zones. Look at all the thugs and dictators currently warming the chairs of the UN General Assembly - the USA installed them all? Let's go down the list...Mugabe, Quadafi,Castro, Assad, to name a few...dictators are, they have been, they will always be. They would exist with or without the USA's help. And before one throws stones at the USA, be sure that one's abode is not made of glass. What about Castro in Cuba? You think Chretien's generosity to Castro doesn't help perpetuate a "bad guy" in power? You think Castro uses the money to establish newspapers for his people to have free expression? Or maybe Castro uses Canada's money so some of his people can get PhD's in the science of human rights? As for "standing up" to our 2 best allies, the Brits and the Yanks...I don't see the long range wisdom in that manoever, especially since one of the allies is Canada's best business partner and represents 40% of our economy.Some of the coalition countries sent a handful of troops, some just gave "reconstruction" pledges...that's all it would have taken to show support of the US/UK endeavour to rid the world of a known pathological dictator. But no, Chretien sided with the axis of weasels, [France, Russia, and Germany] so as to respect Iraq's "sovereignity" and Saddam's right to rule. Very noble. No to forget that nasty little personal Chretien connection to oil contracts signed by Totalfinaelf and Saddam and how those contracts would only be honoured if Saddam continued to stay in power. Chretien's son-in-law and good friend Paul Desmarais had a major stake in Totalfinaelf. As for Canada "asserting" itself with Iran or Syria or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, it takes more than a pale faced weanie Canadian politician voicing "displeasure" to a reporter from CBC to make those countries tow the line. Canada has no presence, no influence, no respect from ME countries because Canada is perceived to be weak. You don't think those countries read the news reports about Canada's military? When you have decrepid Sea King helicopters crashing more often than flying; when Cdn. troops in Afghanistan require German body guards because they don't have appropriate weapons; when troops in Afghanistan have to share protective clothing with their counterparts in Bosnia...the ME dictators just have a good laugh. They're probably saying to themselves that Chretien has nothing to back up his demands except hot air. Politics is no different than business. Alot of deals are made based on image, on positioning, on stance. Chretien and the LPOC, not me, have reduced Canada's stature in the world. Don't get mad at me for things done on Chretien's watch. Btw, I believe the only reason that Mr. Sampson got out alive was because Britain argued "persuasively" on his behalf as well as for a British cell mate. You may recall that this successful negotiation took place AFTER Britain had its troops sitting next door in Iraq. What does that tell you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Morgan, -Afgahnistan is more then a bunch of caves, but the majority of that money is for Iraq, and as i said...show me the WOMD, and i will support it. As for standing up to coutry you automatically asume...that it means piss them off....the reason we are percieved as week is 1)our millitary 2)our government, does not stand up for ourselves...but i have already been over this... you go into a huge message about the millitary...wich i am not going to argue about...it sucks its a piece of Crap it's a dishonor to canada and canadians. You say that America is generous with Irag but they attacked Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction...don't mean to be rude...but have the rided the coutnry of WOMD or do they just not have any? They claimed time and time again that was why they were going to war, so they should pay 87 billion dollars to re-build the country...they did go to war with it. As i said 15 bill to fight aids in Africa is noble but you never answered my question how many billions do you think the U.S makes from exploiting 3rd world coutnries resources for there own use, how about American companies using Child labour from 3rd world countries? Sure 15 million to fight AIDS is a very honourable thign to do and by no means is it chump change but exploiting small countries for there resources is not noble...and id otn see bush anouncing that in any upcoming speech do you? NO! Yes other coutnries do the same and other countries give donations sure they dont equal 15 billion...but maybe there economy doesn't compare to America's so niether shold there donations. If a rich guy gives $15,000 to charity it is very honourable If his worker gives $1,500 we should respect that person just as much due to differing total incomes. Likewise the same goes with coutnries donating to Africa, what counts is that africa is getting humanitarian relief. which prooves my point, California has a GDP of over a trillion dolars, Canada is at about 980 billion is it not? So canada's donation should be less, then america's... Just like with the U.N America has a more powerfull economy, there donations should be bigger, if you look percentage of GDP being donated...America is not donating about the same as other countries. These other countries just like America...could use the money, instead they choose to give a bigger portion of there total earning to humanitarion aid. Next standing up to our two best allies? Where did i say stand up to our two best allies...i honestly think that our relationship wiht britian is about where it should be...they never pushed us to go to war...there media never dissed us becuase we didn't go to war...i hav eno problem with britian becuase britian does not expect us to be there lap dogs any more...and that is becuase we did stand up to britian at one point...and sure int he short term it created a few problems but now things are better...As for America...is it a real relationship if we are there b*tch...no it is not...that in the long term is good for america in the short term it is good for America...but it si not good for Canada to be soemone's B1tch...it is not a relationship it is nothign liek a relationship...i dunno if you ahve ever had a relationship i am going to make an assumption that you have...you notice how in a relationship...you work with each other...and sometimes your friend does somethign you dont like...you dont join them just becuase there your friend...and if they are your true friend...they will understand..so having a relationship with America requires us to express our own opinions. I didn't make the comment of the U.S beign the biggest reaper of dictators and i dotn neccasarily belive this however. The U.S does support dictators if it protects America's interests...and they will go to war over it.... ----------------------------Latin America--------------------------- 1898 Spanish-American War begins (April 21); US troops invade Puerto Rico (July 25) 1901 Platt Amendment, allowing US intervention in Cuba, adopted by US Senate 1903 US forces from the USS Nashville halt the advancing Colombian army at Panama; United States recognizes independence of the Republic of Panama 1904 US intervention in Dominican Republic to enforce debt repayments and administer customs from 1905 to 1907 1906 US intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1909 1912 Renewed intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1917 1912 US Marines invade Nicaragua on conservative side of civil war; remaining until 1933 1914 Tampico incident in Mexico leads to landing of US forces; Veracruz, Mexico bombarded; war averted by mediation of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile 1915 Military occupation of Haiti begins; treaty efectively makes Haiti a US protectorate; troops stay until 1934 1916 US Marines intervene in Dominican Republic, lasting until 1924 1917 US Marines occupy Cuba, lasting until 1923 1919 US Marines occupy Honduran ports 1924 US Marines land in Honduras 1926 US Marines organize Nicaraguan National Guard; the Somoza dynasty (1936 to 1979) uses Nicaraguan National Guard as guarantor of their political control 1932 US Navy on standby during the natanza (suppression of a peasant rebellion) in El Salvador 1954 Guatemalan President Jacobo Ärbenz ousted by CIA-inspired coup 1962 Cuban missile crisis 1965 US Marines sent to Dominican Republic to prevent a left-wing takeover during the Dominican civil war 1973 CIA helps orchestrate and fund military coup of President Salvador Allende in Chile 1981 Contra War in Nicaragua begins; United States involved legally and illegally in support of Contras 1983 Invasion of Granada 1989 Invasion of Panama 1994 Intervention in Haiti ----------------------------Point Made------------------------------- All in all you say chretian has weakend the millitary, which i agree with...yous ay our millitary failures go hand in hand wiht canada not beign able to stick up for it's self ont he international stage. You endorse other coutnries for stickign up for themselves. It seems to me you ahve a double standard.....which happens to be Canada should stick up for its self, but if it is America we shold run grab a leash and collar put it on our necks and give the leash to America. That is wrong, yes we should be freindly but we should not disrespect our own country like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Your post is senseless anti-american drivel. In an anarchic world, power and military projection is vital. Read some works by R. Gilpin, they might help you to wash away your brainwashed rah rah Canadiana. On your posts on US aggression, they are the shopworn, incorrect, anti-US pro Liberal insanity i read daily. On the events you listed: 1898 Spanish-American War begins (April 21); US troops invade Puerto Rico (July 25) >Actually the US invaded to help the rebels in a civil war throw off Spanish oppression. Forgot to add that did you? 1901 Platt Amendment, allowing US intervention in Cuba, adopted by US Senate >Congress has to approve war. Forgot that did you? 1903 US forces from the USS Nashville halt the advancing Colombian army at Panama; United States recognizes independence of the Republic of Panama >Yes and well they did, plus this allowed the Canal to be built. Good one. 1904 US intervention in Dominican Republic to enforce debt repayments and administer customs from 1905 to 1907 >Yes no kidding and so what. 1906 US intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1909 >And your point is ? The US won the war rebuilt the gov't and then left. 1912 Renewed intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1917 >This is the same as the point above. 1912 US Marines invade Nicaragua on conservative side of civil war; remaining until 1933 >At the behest of Nicaraguans you should add and the force was tiny. So what is the point ? 1914 Tampico incident in Mexico leads to landing of US forces; Veracruz, Mexico bombarded; war averted by mediation of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile >Pancho Villa and Mexican raiders abetted by German money were stealing property and killing US citizens. So what is your point here ? The US retaliated when the Mexcian gov't did nothing. 1915 Military occupation of Haiti begins; treaty efectively makes Haiti a US protectorate; troops stay until 1934 1916 US Marines intervene in Dominican Republic, lasting until 1924 >Again both instances in accord with wishes of both countries trying to fight insurgency. So what is your point ? 1917 US Marines occupy Cuba, lasting until 1923 >Already mentioned. 1919 US Marines occupy Honduran ports >To protect US shipping 1924 US Marines land in Honduras >After being asked by the gov't. 1926 US Marines organize Nicaraguan National Guard; the Somoza dynasty (1936 to 1979) uses Nicaraguan National Guard as guarantor of their political control >Actually the Somoza dynasty so called was never organised by the US. The Nicaraguans organised this themselves quite nicely. 1932 US Navy on standby during the natanza (suppression of a peasant rebellion) in El Salvador >And so what ? 1954 Guatemalan President Jacobo Ärbenz ousted by CIA-inspired coup >Not true, ousted by his own military. Good try though. 1962 Cuban missile crisis >And ??? Started by the Russians, your point is ? 1965 US Marines sent to Dominican Republic to prevent a left-wing takeover during the Dominican civil war >Funded by Cubans and Soviets, what do you want them to do ? 1973 CIA helps orchestrate and fund military coup of President Salvador Allende in Chile >Total nonsense. Allende was taken down by his own people and military. 1981 Contra War in Nicaragua begins; United States involved legally and illegally in support of Contras >No only illegal in 1986 - read some history. Nic. was funded by cubans and soviets. What do you want them to do ? 1983 Invasion of Granada >Restored democracy. Great invasion. 1989 Invasion of Panama >Restored democracy. Great invasion. 1994 Intervention in Haiti >To save the Island from starvation. Great invasion. You can also add to your sad sorry list the 35 nations that are free due to US activity in WW2 and during the Cold War plus the nations that today free ride off of US security and military power. Forgot about those did you ? Your pathological irrelevant and historically inaccurate US bashing is nothing more than --- senselessness. Get some help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Your post is senseless anti-american drivel. In an anarchic world, power and military projection is vital. Read some works by R. Gilpin, they might help you to wash away your brainwashed rah rah Canadiana. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get out more often pal, there is nothign sensless about it what is sensless is how quick you are to discard it...becuase you see a reason for it...just as i see a reason agaisnt it...everythign you read is propaganda the question is whose propaganda do you belive....honestly you went out and got a list of what the events did. you provided arguement and partial fact, and decided my opinions were senseless becuase the disagreed with yours...with out taking the tiem to consider my opinions that my friend is truly and undeniable senseless. 1898 Spanish-American War begins (April 21); US troops invade Puerto Rico (July 25) >Actually the US invaded to help the rebels in a civil war throw off Spanish oppression. Forgot to add that did you? *There were other pressures pushing towards war. The US navy had recently grown considerably, but it was still untested. The Navy had drawn up plans for attacking the Spanish in the Philippines over a year before hostilities broke out. interesting i guess you must have only read 1 person on the subject and he must have discarded the information that point's to the U.S looking for a war to fight? either that or you choose to ignore it? or hopw about an American Senators comments? -business leaders pushed for conflict as well. In the words of Senator Thurston of Nebraska: "War with Spain would increase the business and earnings of every American railroad, it would increase the output of every American factory, it would stimulate every branch of industry and domestic commerce." so they were definentley also in it for the money, but it sounds good to say fighting for freedom and democracy doesn't it? >Congress has to approve war. Forgot that did you? are you serious congress has to approve war? WOW!!! Congress has to approve war thank the lord America is democratic....just wait....no...congress represents Americian's doesn't it? yea thats right so then...what your trying to do is post some total trash that every one knows, and i never denied or argued against to make me look like an idiot in peopel's eye's to make what i say irrelivent...so which book did you get that one out of? 1903 US forces from the USS Nashville halt the advancing Colombian army at Panama; United States recognizes independence of the Republic of Panama >Yes and well they did, plus this allowed the Canal to be built. Good one. -actually what your trying to say is more like this.... When Colombia refused to sell the rights to dig the canal, Roosevelt threw U.S. power behind a Panamanian uprising and supported Panama's 1903 declaration of independence. But i am sure the book you read didn't mention this, either that or you purposley didn't mention it. 1904 US intervention in Dominican Republic to enforce debt repayments and administer customs from 1905 to 1907 >Yes no kidding and so what. 1906 US intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1909 >And your point is ? The US won the war rebuilt the gov't and then left. 1912 Renewed intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1917 >This is the same as the point above. okay sure, so what...well again American Buisness, was heavily involved in Cuba the intervention was to protect this all i am saying is it is not so mucht he people as it is the benjamin's. 1912 US Marines invade Nicaragua on conservative side of civil war; remaining until 1933 >At the behest of Nicaraguans you should add and the force was tiny. So what is the point ? Point? well was on the conservative side...now this isn't a communism conservatism thing...but they entered to help the conservative side to....again protect American Buisness and American interets...which the conservative side would do AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR OWN POPULATION'S WELL BEING. 1914 Tampico incident in Mexico leads to landing of US forces; Veracruz, Mexico bombarded; war averted by mediation of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile >Pancho Villa and Mexican raiders abetted by German money were stealing property and killing US citizens. So what is your point here ? The US retaliated when the Mexcian gov't did nothing. *the books you read missed a few more things and overstated others...to bad, you almost had a good point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In short the Mexican regime under General Huerta harassed U.S. sailors stationed off Mexican waters in early 1914. The nature of the discourtesy - the arrested sailors were paraded through the streets of Tampico - was such that Admiral Henry Mayo, commander of U.S. naval forces in the region, declined an initial Mexican apology for a verbal apology. Instead Mayo demanded that the person or persons responsible for the incident be punished and that the U.S. flag be given a 21-gun salute on shore. The Mexicans responded with a written apology and General Huerta similarly expressed his regret - but crucially the U.S. demand for a flag salute on Mexican soil was denied. Thus on 20 April 1914 President Woodrow Wilson went to Congress and requested authorisation to use military force to produce the required form of Mexican contrition. Wilson was concerned that Tampico merely comprised the latest in a series of such incidents. Two days later Congress granted Wilson the authority he sought. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- so then it was an invasion to make mexico salute the American Flag, yes it was well worth it. 1915 Military occupation of Haiti begins; treaty efectively makes Haiti a US protectorate; troops stay until 1934 1916 US Marines intervene in Dominican Republic, lasting until 1924 >Again both instances in accord with wishes of both countries trying to fight insurgency. So what is your point ? yes however, they were there oninvatation becuase it would keep the government in power, and allow the government to continue to supress the people of the ocuntry and ignore there needs. They may have been invited but the population didn't want them. 1919 US Marines occupy Honduran ports >To protect US shipping well said, so its okay to invade a country hurt the population to protect buisness. 1924 US Marines land in Honduras >After being asked by the gov't. again if you were going to being attacked by rebel forces who wanted your head wouldn't you want to save your rear end? the questionis why did they want there head? oppression of the people in the Honduras by the government to protect American interests. 1926 US Marines organize Nicaraguan National Guard; the Somoza dynasty (1936 to 1979) uses Nicaraguan National Guard as guarantor of their political control >Actually the Somoza dynasty so called was never organised by the US. The Nicaraguans organised this themselves quite nicely. Really so the money he was given from the U.S was from the monopoly bored game right? The American troops trianed there to attack other countries in latin America were men for the bored game risk? in fact when FDR said this about Somoza “He may be a Son of a Bitch, but he’s our Son of a Bitch!” what was that, i cant think of the bored game that came from maybe it was reality like the other two. 1932 US Navy on standby during the natanza (suppression of a peasant rebellion) in El Salvador >well its interesting when the U.S attacked the spanish it was to stop oppression, however, they wont stop oppression here infact they were actually prepared to help the oppressors. 1954 Guatemalan President Jacobo Ärbenz ousted by CIA-inspired coup >Not true, ousted by his own military. Good try though. actually the attempt was by the CIA and the guy in no way connected with the U.S FDR's buddy somoza, they supported a general named Carlos Castillo Armas. Of course after he came to power, 100,000 peopel were rounded up and killed. By the way it is actually considered Fact that the U.S sponsered the coup. There are books written about the coup...and the fact that it was sponsered by the U.S which is exactly what i said... now notice how i said the CIA inspired the coup, and the U.S supported the coup, i am not denying the fact is was carried out by the millitary but they are just the tool. does the hammer make the shed, or the worker...i belive the worker makes the shed, unforutnantley you seem to belvie the hammer makes the shed, i belvie the hammer is nothing with out the worker. 1965 US Marines sent to Dominican Republic to prevent a left-wing takeover during the Dominican civil war >Funded by Cubans and Soviets, what do you want them to do ? The Johnson Administration's unilateral decision to invade the Dominican Republic was based on erroneous information and the President's own concerns over the possibility of "another Cuba" in the hemisphere and the residual effect that it would have on U.S. efforts in Vietnam. 1973 CIA helps orchestrate and fund military coup of President Salvador Allende in Chile >Total nonsense. Allende was taken down by his own people and military. you seem to enjoy misenterpretign what i say, I am not denying who took him down...but it comes down to the hammer and worker thing the people who took him down were the hammer and the U.S was the worker. 1981 Contra War in Nicaragua begins; United States involved legally and illegally in support of Contras >No only illegal in 1986 - read some history. Nic. was funded by cubans and soviets. What do you want them to do ? as i said involved illegaly and legaly 1989 Invasion of Panama >Restored democracy. Great invasion. yea so the question is why was noriega on the CIA's payroll in the 70's? Or how he was praised during the 80's by American political figures. Infact what happend was noriega was no longer America's boy, he had out lived his use and now it was time to get a democracy in place. 1994 Intervention in Haiti >To save the Island from starvation. Great invasion. Did it realy? or does it jsut sound nice perhaps living conditions were improved slightly...however what it did was get a person out of power the U.S didn't like in the name of the people. Sen. Patrick Leahy "The poorest country in the hemisphere remains a place where the government is barely functioning, political reform has gotten nowhere, and democracy exists only in theory. the judicial system is in disarray, the police are politicized, and the average person lives from hand to mouth." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can also add to your sad sorry list the 35 nations that are free due to US activity in WW2 and during the Cold War plus the nations that today free ride off of US security and military power. Forgot about those did you ? Your pathological irrelevant and historically inaccurate US bashing is nothing more than --- senselessness. Get some help. Hey were are having a debate here, if you want to debate lets debate i am open to hearing your opinion, however you have never met, you don't know me and you resort to continually insulting me time and time again. That is what is truly disgusting and your display of verbal abuse is what is really senseless. As far as WW2 What is it with America Versus the world? in every single war out there. Russia fought, France sorta fought , Britain faught, Canada faught the fact is the huge Bias you have in your information is historically innacuret...the evil communist's were the main reason behind victory in Europe...they actually pushed the NAZI's out of more countries then America did..and America was not the only western democratic power involved int he war as you are tryign to indicate which is historically inncacurate, SO PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Bit of a clown you are. You quote out of context historical data and then rant from the misrepresentation. In any event you have one major flawed premise - you focus on the PAST actions of Canadians in fighting for freedom. Pray tell what is Canada doing NOW ? -No military -- in fact in a recent report the military will cease to exist within 15 years. It will literally just rot into ruin; -Trudeau liberalism where Cuba and Communism are elevated as sacred theologies and feel good socialism with massive redistribution and lowered living standards are enshrined as public goods; -An immigraiton policy that caters to politicians and immigrant lawyers supported by the CoR and media nonsense on 'diversity'. As if having separate minority groups agitating for their rights and special privileges is an intelligent way to build a country; -Free riding off the US drug firms and military while making sure the Americans are told daily how stupid, fat and incompetent they are; -CBC and media anti-US vitriol [all in the name of nation state building - nice one - as if negative aspersions creates a confident nation]; -Nothing being done on the war on terror - Nothing. 1900 Cdn soldiers in Kabul - big deal. The US has 150.000 troops deployed world wide; -Political morons like Chretien blaming the US for 9-11 The payback ? Trade tensions, no seat at the big boys table and an alliance with France. Whoopee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Bit of a clown you are.You quote out of context historical data and then rant from the misrepresentation. In any event you have one major flawed premise - you focus on the PAST actions of Canadians in fighting for freedom. Pray tell what is Canada doing NOW ? -No military -- in fact in a recent report the military will cease to exist within 15 years. It will literally just rot into ruin; -Trudeau liberalism where Cuba and Communism are elevated as sacred theologies and feel good socialism with massive redistribution and lowered living standards are enshrined as public goods; -An immigraiton policy that caters to politicians and immigrant lawyers supported by the CoR and media nonsense on 'diversity'. As if having separate minority groups agitating for their rights and special privileges is an intelligent way to build a country; -Free riding off the US drug firms and military while making sure the Americans are told daily how stupid, fat and incompetent they are; -CBC and media anti-US vitriol [all in the name of nation state building - nice one - as if negative aspersions creates a confident nation]; -Nothing being done on the war on terror - Nothing. 1900 Cdn soldiers in Kabul - big deal. The US has 150.000 troops deployed world wide; -Political morons like Chretien blaming the US for 9-11 The payback ? Trade tensions, no seat at the big boys table and an alliance with France. Whoopee. well when the CIA and the U.S president says that the CIA helped organize the bay of pigs i am inclined to belive them, when my history teacher as wella s books say that somoza and the U.S were buddies and worked to gether with each other i am inclined to belive them. The CIA's involvement int he chilian coup is fiarly well documented as well. Now you can say all of this was neccasary and we could debate that for hours and get no where, however to say it isn't a historical fact is a very big stretch to the truth. As for Canada's role in the international market, i have never supported are how canada Plays that game read my posts no arguement here. The Canadian millitary is a Joke our foriegn policy is a joke, our sit on our rear end's and do nothing policy is a joke, the canadian government is a joke. That beign said its is our governments main job to make life better for canadians first and foremost. I fail to see how sucking up to America and takign a roel lower then the presidents dog makes Canada a better country on the National and international field. America is not God, they are capable of evil, they are capable of doing worng...and they have, and you should not treat them as God as if the can do no wrong...that is historical inacurate and that is highly biased. Every country has done wrong, including America you sugar coat America so much it is repulsive. I am all for Good U.S Canadian relations, but i am not interested in comprimising Canadian soveriegnty any mro then it already is, i am not interested in for giong Canada's will, to please America. I am however for the idea of picking up our share of the defense of North America, I am all for working together closer with America on certian policy. However unlike you i belive Canada is a country and as a country has a right to govern it's own self, it has a right to disagree with other coutnries be it France or be it America we have every right to do so, just like your beloved America has the same right. If we are to have a relationship witht he U.S it MUST i will say it agin MUST be equal we must share the duties, we must share the re-wards and we also most co-operate...not have Caanda be America's slave...that is not a relationship that is ownership...if you deem relationship's to be 1 person continual submitting themselves to another...having there free will, there opinions and there own interests removed fromt hem and deemed un important...then there is definentley some problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.