Jump to content

Usa Botched The Job In Iraq


Recommended Posts

Dear all,

It is my contention that the US has botched the Iraq invasion, not only in mine eyes, but in the eyes of the world. Here's why:

1: The lack of proper declaration of war.

The US did not follow protocol pertaining to declaration of war. They used 1448 (written by the US and the UK) as a basis for war but did not formally declare it, thus avoiding the clear demarcations of fiscal responsibility accompanying such a declaration.

The problem: no clear demarcation to end said hostilities.

As we all can see, the hostilities have not ended. If the US (and coalition) had adhered to the rules, they could have said: "surrender or the tanks will roll again". Thus, the impetus to end hostilities would have been on the Iraqi Gov't (which the US and UK blamed for the origin of the hostilities). Howver, with the declaration of 'hostilites' being issued by the US, and ALSO the cessation also decreed by the US, there has been NO SURRENDER document signed by Iraq.

The US has not issued surrender terms. This can only mean that there was no official 'war'. (The US chose to declare an end to the hostilities, an incredible folly on their part)

2: One can only assume that a declaration of war on 'terror' means that the terrorists were targetted, not the Iraqi army. Yet it was the Iraqi army that targetted for destruction, not the terrorists. As of yet, I do not believe a single 'Iraqi regular' has commited an act of terrorism. In fact, more US soldiers have been captured and tried for 'terrorism' (or treason) than Iraqi soldiers. I understand that the US was acting on laws regarding 'aiding and abetting', yet I submit that these charges are, as of yet, groundless.

3: WMD's. Perhaps it was folly for the US to use the threat of WMD's as the main impetus for invasion. The threat is real, no one can deny that. However, it is the manipulation of threat assessment that gave the 'proxy' vote on behalf of the American Public to begin hostilites.

The actions of 9/11 beg the question: If Iraq funded terrorists, hated the west, and had WMDs, why did they not use them as the first strike? Also, why did they not (if they had them) use them as a last resort?

KH11 is old technology. Yet it could read the brand name of a pack of smokes in the desert from space.

The US has been less than forthcoming in it's 'evidence'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear all,

It is my contention that the US has botched the Iraq invasion, not only in mine eyes, but in the eyes of the world. Here's why:

1: The lack of proper declaration of war.

The US did not follow protocol pertaining to declaration of war. They used 1448 (written by the US and the UK) as a basis for war but did not formally declare it, thus avoiding the clear demarcations of fiscal responsibility accompanying such a declaration.

The problem: no clear demarcation to end said hostilities.

As we all can see, the hostilities have not ended. If the US (and coalition) had adhered to the rules, they could have said: "surrender or the tanks will roll again". Thus, the impetus to end hostilities would have been on the Iraqi Gov't (which the US and UK blamed for the origin of the hostilities). Howver, with the declaration of 'hostilites' being issued by the US, and ALSO the cessation also decreed by the US, there has been NO SURRENDER document signed by Iraq.

The US has not issued surrender terms. This can only mean that there was no official 'war'. (The US chose to declare an end to the hostilities, an incredible folly on their part)

2: One can only assume that a declaration of war on 'terror' means that the terrorists were targetted, not the Iraqi army. Yet it was the Iraqi army that targetted for destruction, not the terrorists. As of yet, I do not believe a single 'Iraqi regular' has commited an act of terrorism. In fact, more US soldiers have been captured and tried for 'terrorism' (or treason) than Iraqi soldiers. I understand that the US was acting on laws regarding 'aiding and abetting', yet I submit that these charges are, as of yet, groundless.

3: WMD's. Perhaps it was folly for the US to use the threat of WMD's as the main impetus for invasion. The threat is real, no one can deny that. However, it is the manipulation of threat assessment that gave the 'proxy' vote on behalf of the American Public to begin hostilites.

The actions of 9/11 beg the question: If Iraq funded terrorists, hated the west, and had WMDs, why did they not use them as the first strike? Also, why did they not (if they had them) use them as a last resort?

KH11 is old technology. Yet it could read the brand name of a pack of smokes in the desert from space.

The US has been less than forthcoming in it's 'evidence'

What are you saying, exactly ?

They 'botched' the Iraq invasion how ? There exist several objectives, some of which the US has achieved and some of which they will never achieve.

But you seem to be taking items from the war's PR campaign and using them as evidence that the war has been 'botched'. But the PR campaign is mainly targetted at American voters and the test of botchiness isn't until next November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Hardner,

I say 'botched' from the point of view that the US' stated intentions have differed from the result. I believe that you are saying that the result will be favourable to their 'unstated intentions'. To this I will not disagree, but will personally doubt.

To state:

There exist several objectives, some of which the US has achieved and some of which they will never achieve.
Is true, insofar as the objective of 'peace in the region' will never be acheived by the US, through military force. However, the other objectives acheived are only as 'good' (or value-able) as your planning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your contention is premature at best.

1: The lack of proper declaration of war.

This is irrelevent. Korea and Vietnam are among examples in which wars occured without formal declaration. Regardless of whether a formal declaration is issued, the rules of war (according to western doctrine) remain the same.

The option of surrender was made available to the Saddam regime at all points before, during, and after the commencement and ceasing of major combat operations. This is not a case of the US refusing to accept a surrender. The former Iraqi leadership is no where to be found. Instead, some former leadership have chosen to wage an insurgency that violates all of the tenents of the Geneva Convention, an agreement to which the West has adhered to so firmly.

2: One can only assume that a declaration of war on 'terror' means that the terrorists were targetted, not the Iraqi army.

You will not fool anyone with your false logic here. The "war on terror" is a broad global campaign to eliminate the terrorist threat through a variety of means including financially, culturally, and militarily. Iraq is but one battle in the war on terror. The objective here from the beginning has been regime change. The Iraqi military defends (willingly or unwillingly) a terrorist regime, therefore the Iraqi military is effectively a terrorist army. While it may be debatable whether Saddam cooperated with Al Qaeda, there is no doubt that this regime has been a long time state sponsor of terror.

3: WMD's. Perhaps it was folly for the US to use the threat of WMD's as the main impetus for invasion. 

Whether or not the US will find actual WMD is still to be determined and will likely not be determined until the country is secured. What is fairly certain is that enough evidence of WMD programs will be uncovered in order to justify the war in the face of critics. Ofcourse, any right thinking America relizes that the war is justified regardless of whether any evidence of WMD is found at all.

The actions of 9/11 beg the question: If Iraq funded terrorists, hated the west, and had WMDs, why did they not use them as the first strike? Also, why did they not (if they had them) use them as a last resort?

You'd have to ask Saddam that question but I imagine if he thought he could have pulled it off undetected, he wouldn't have hesitated to do so.

KH11 is old technology. Yet it could read the brand name of a pack of smokes in the desert from space.

Even so, the most advanced satelite imaging technology still cannot penetrate 60 feet of solid rock.

The US has been less than forthcoming in it's 'evidence'

I counter that the liberals have been absolutely unforthcoming in their "evidence"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of proper declaration of war.

Did Iraq declare all it's WMD programes to the UN in accordance with Resolution 687 and 1441? This was of paramount importance to being in adherence with the ceasefire from the first Gulf War. No, they did not. . This is a continuation of the same war and therefore no declaration is necessary.

I think you botched your premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Righturnonred said:

The "war on terror" is a broad global campaign to eliminate the terrorist threat through a variety of means including financially, culturally, and militarily. Iraq is but one battle in the war on terror.

You bet! And if there was any doubt, just check the headlines in the Washington Post! If you're a terrorist, there's no place to run, no place to hide...

The FBI, in an unprecedented move that has strained relations with a close ally in the war on terrorism, has subpoenaed records for dozens of bank accounts belonging to the Saudi Embassy, part of an investigation into whether any of the hundreds of millions of dollars Riyadh spends in the United States each year end up in the hands of Muslim extremists, U.S. and Saudi officials said...U.S. officials said the FBI's Washington field office subpoenaed the records of dozens of Saudi bank accounts to determine whether Saudi government money knowingly or unknowingly helped fund extremists in the United States. Although many Saudi entities have been investigated in the past, U.S. officials said this was the first investigation to directly probe Saudi government funds. Senior U.S. officials said they do not recall any other time when the bank records of an embassy were subpoenaed. The investigation focuses on the financial activities of the Islamic and cultural affairs office of the embassy as well as the activities of Saudi consulates around the United States, officials said.

Bank Data for Saudi Embassy Subpoenaed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

Resolution 687 and 1441? This was of paramount importance to being in adherence with the ceasefire from the first Gulf War. No, they did not. . This is a continuation of the same war and therefore no declaration is necessary.

You seem to be missing about 754 resolutions that the US did not think important enough to declare war over. Is it because most of these 700+ were against them or their allies? Against dictatorships they were currently supporting? Of course, not all of them.

My point was that the US, although illegally in Iraq, could have avoided a great deal of ambiguity, and international strife, if they had declared war.

Further, they could have ended resistance in Iraq with a far stronger hand than they have now if official war was declared. They could have said, "If reistance continues, so will carpet bombing". They threw away that card before they even started. Foolishness. As much as I deplore violence, I can't believe the US(who adore violence) would toss away their trump card.

I suppose I can believe it, though, since they have been military idiots since the Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resolution 687 and 1441? This was of paramount importance to being in adherence with the ceasefire from the first Gulf War. No, they did not. . This is a continuation of the same war and therefore no declaration is necessary.

You seem to be missing about 754 resolutions that the US did not think important enough to declare war over. Is it because most of these 700+ were against them or their allies? Against dictatorships they were currently supporting? Of course, not all of them.

My point was that the US, although illegally in Iraq, could have avoided a great deal of ambiguity, and international strife, if they had declared war.

Further, they could have ended resistance in Iraq with a far stronger hand than they have now if official war was declared. They could have said, "If reistance continues, so will carpet bombing". They threw away that card before they even started. Foolishness. As much as I deplore violence, I can't believe the US(who adore violence) would toss away their trump card.

I suppose I can believe it, though, since they have been military idiots since the Civil War.

You have no point, the US is legaly in Iraq. 687 is the mandate for them. Show me hard evidence that Iraq has complied. Show me where there has not been WMD evidence turned up in Iraq. Show me conclusive proof that Saddam has TOTALLY COMPLIED with all resolutions.

It chose to enforce this one, the rest, well, I suppose you can see if maybe the rest of the UN wil take care of those as the US is busy right now.

As for military geniuses and trump cards, you seem to be missing a war here. It was not designed to destroy Iraq but rather exticate the ruling Regieme and leave as much of the country intact. All with minimal damage to civiliians. A totally different objective than what you seem to think it is. Had you been in charge of the military campaign we would not even have one Iraqi left to free therefore you are unqualified to judge good or inept military/political strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN reported today that experts searching for WMDs are more and more being reassigned to gather intel on the resistance. also the general in iraq said they have not found any alqueda links in iraq since the beginnig of the war.

obviously it was all a lie.

sirriff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN reported today that experts searching for WMDs are more and more being reassigned to gather intel on the resistance. also the general in iraq said they have not found any alqueda links in iraq since the beginnig of the war.

obviously it was all a lie.

sirriff

Wow, you sure read a lot into a fact Riff. I took the article to mean that some of the translaters and staff have been reassigned temporarily in order to aid in the fight agaist the accelerated attacks by foreign infiltrators and former Regieme Members. And from that fact you get a confirmation that there is no WMD in Iraq at all? When over 90 percent of it's weapons stocks have yet to be inspected, when over half the country has not been looked at?

RIFF'S PROOF THAT THERE IS NO WMD IN IRAQ

The New York Times reports the reassignment of the experts is temporary but the remainder of the weapons inspectors have also been told to "broaden their perspective and not to stay so focused on weapons that they miss the counterinsurgency stuff".

Let's set this straight so that some idiot Leftie does not come here and take what you posted for fact. There is not a "more and more" reassignment. It is a "temporary reassignment" because it is kind of hard to inspect while you are getting shot at. Like I said before, scince you know there is no WMD in Iraq, help. Give the US all your data that shows how all the material vanished, where it was destroyed and when. Also, how did you get this info? Or are you just riffing without a clue Rant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

How much time would you allot the US to find proof of WMDs before you agreed or admitted that the US was lying. 1 Year? 6 months? Never? They claimed (without proof, which is their folly) that WMDs were destroyed. Evidence thus far agrees with this.

How difficult is it to prove the existence or non existence of something that (is claimed) does not exist? Impossible!

Still, one of the main arguments is whether WMDs had anything whatsoever to do with the US/UK invasion. Might I remind you that it was Mr. Blair's sole reasoning and trump card to use the threat of WMDs to disobey the will of the electorate and go to war in Iraq. Without the UK, the US might well have stood alone in squashing Iraq.

To say that the US is fighting for 'democratic ideals, etc' is pure hogwash. The world knows it too. That is why few believe in the US anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lonius, in order to say for sure that there is no WMD in Iraq one has to cover the entire country. That has not been done yet by over half. For legalities, enough material has been uncovered to warrent the continuation of hostilities from the 91 Gulf War. Hence, the only outstanding issue here is WMD themselves.

If you read back over the past few months I have said many times that the reason for the war was never, ever, about WMD. This was one of the reasons Bush gave to the American people and Blair to the British. Given the flagrent uncoperative behavior of Saddam towards the UN inspections and the fact that every day inspectors were tripping over undisclosed WMD equipment and material it is not much of a stretch to say that in all probability he had WMD themselves. Every indication was there that he did and he never fully disclosed his inventories to a real inspection after ten years of oportunity.

I have and will again tell you that in all probability WMD themselves will not be found in Iraq. Also as before I will tell you that nobody could say for certain that there was not, hence Bush was for every intent, telling the truth to the best of his knowledge. Yes, he probably amplified the threat but for what reason?

The seeding of democracy in order to provide an Arab anchor in the Middle East that provided an example for all. Democracy, freedom and prosperity are the worst things that can happen to a terrorist. That is the reason for the invasion of Iraq, not some stupid Scud with some ten year old mustard agent it.

Why the emphasis on WMD rather than rebuilding a country into democratic form from a tyrannical dictatorship? Look no further than yourself, you were against this from the start for any reason. Even when indications were that he did have all sorts of nasty stuff poised to strike the Western World. Would you have bought it simply to seedc Democracy? Doubt it.

It's not to fight for our ideals but to give an opportunity for a life to people who otherwise are going to turn into suicide bombers that is what is happening. I am surprised that you don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

It is not that I do not 'get' the ideals being marketed regarding the US' actions regarding Iraq. I just do not believe:

1. The US is acting according to the intentions they state.

2. The ideal of democracy can be foisted upon a people that do not subscribe to the notion. (Islamic law, and therefore, to a certain degree, Islam itself being 'subjugated' to 'western' ideals.

I have never stated that democracy is not a noble notion, in fact I think it is the greatest ideal that is bastardized by most every culture and state in the world today.

The US is foolish to think that it can 'dupe the world' by using democracy as a tenet of foreign policy when they crush it when they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that it cannot be "foisted" on the people of Iraq? Even they are strangers to any notion except that as subjects of a tyannical dictator. The Idea of an Islamic Society, Communism, Aristocracy is all foreign to them. They just got out of prison for crying out loud!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

Islam was not invented by Saddam Hussein. It's roots and adherence to Islamic law date back to 600-700 AD. God may forgive but religious leaders do not. They hold the threat of eternal damnation in Hell over one's head. Some believe more strictly than others, and Islam is probably the strictest of all.

'Foisting' does not sit well with zealots. The problem the west has is in thinking that only a tiny minority are zealous. That is like saying only a tiny minority of Jews care if the State of Israel exists. Or only a handful of Americans really care for the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot about all the guys that were around in the first millenium. Like you remember when you were gathering pine cones in northern Germany when you were only a couple centuries old. Bring back the good old days of wenching and pillaging!

Get real. Zealots are organised but are by no means the majority. Hence the reluctance by the US to turn Iraq over to Iraqis. it is, if you will observe, the religious men who want this, call for it, aid in the resistance by semi or non cooperation with the US. The people want to live, to prosper, to be free, free from all, US included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KK, these 'zealots' would not be unhappy until Islamo - Fascism has defeated US interests. Nothing would make the lunatic left happier than the destruction of civilisation and of stupid white men in particular. Isn't it obvious that technology, progress, higher living standards, education, health and knowledge are evil, iniquitous and brutal ?

Better to suspend progress, revert back to superstition and avow that all attempts to build a modern, democratic world are evil and imperialistic. Better to create national fortresses immune to trade, international influence and premised on isolationism. Much better to yield to fascism and the higher culture of Islam than to defend freedom.

Sickening isn't it. I don't know why you waste your time arguing with Fleabag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Read,

Your beloved US of A is

premised on isolationism

The fact is that

technology, progress, higher living standards, education, health and knowledge
are higher standards than the profit motive, yet you believe that they cannot exist without it.

It is the fact that the US believes that ONLY the US shoud benefit from these standards that is

evil, iniquitous and brutal ?
That is why they support, fund, and sustain brutal dictatorships. These dictators control their labour camps. Perhaps we should be fighting to free the slaves in China, Taiwan and Bangladesh, who make the products for Martha Stewart, P.Diddy, J.C Penny and Wal-Mart.

I 'Guess' freeing slaves would be treasonous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your beloved US of A is premised on isolationism

The US discarded isolationism a long time ago, so what's your point?

The fact is that technology, progress, higher living standards, education, health and knowledge 

are higher standards than the profit motive, yet you believe that they cannot exist without it.

That's right. You socialist liberals are so consumed with the faulty idea that profit is evil. Why are you, personaly, so opposed to this concept? let me spell it out for you:

PROFIT = INCENTIVE

INTITLEMENT = NO INCENTIVE

Profit makes the world go around and you'll have a great deal of trouble convincing the average person otherwise.

Frankly you sound like someone who doesn't want to have to work for living.

Perhaps we should be fighting to free the slaves in China, Taiwan and Bangladesh, who make the products for Martha Stewart, P.Diddy, J.C Penny and Wal-Mart.

Garbage. Although people in these foreign countries don't enjoy a standard of living like we have in the US, they still benefit enormously through multinational trade and commerce. If these people weren't producing goods for global consumers, they'd likely still be living in serfdom. For the first time in history, these people have access to things we take for granted. Things such a refrigerator or a decent diet.

As a matter of fact, if you'd had your way, our civilization never would have progressed beyond an agrarian society.

You can flap your arms as hard as you want but you'll never leave the gound. Socialist utopia is a pipe dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialist Liberals are the Useful Idiots as Lenin called them, who believe that everything can be managed and that state sponsored limitations on freedom, economics, and thought are necessary.

Unfortunately Socialism defined as the creation of a society that is premised on elite direction of socio-economic matters, and 'Rawlsian' justice, equality and embedded rights, with equal misery and equal redistribution for all, is alive and well.

Such a creed promising welfare and some form of social equality, can manifest itself in many surprising forms - Fascism is one, Theocracy is another, Divine Right another, Oligarchy yet another.

Under the socialist system the elite benefit, the rest suffer. There is little bourgeouis defence of middle class voting interests [no money], the market is not consumer oriented but politically oriented, freedoms are limited and opportunity non-existent or in decline.

Socialism has native appeal. Justice, equality, tears of compassion, and 'feeling' placed above intelligence, effort and reality.

It is however, an entirely perverted philosophy, based upon a mis-reading of markets, the human spirit, the capacity for self interested compassion and virtue, and the unmistakeable desire to build, develop, enrich and progress.

Canada - as a socialist entity - would do well to get rid of such an enervating philosophy. Big gov't, controlled by an elite, does not a moral society make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

It is not that I do not 'get' the ideals being marketed regarding the US' actions regarding Iraq. I just do not believe:

1. The US is acting according to the intentions they state.

2. The ideal of democracy can be foisted upon a people that do not subscribe to the notion. (Islamic law, and therefore, to a certain degree, Islam itself being 'subjugated' to 'western' ideals.

I have never stated that democracy is not a noble notion, in fact I think it is the greatest ideal that is bastardized by most every culture and state in the world today.

The US is foolish to think that it can 'dupe the world' by using democracy as a tenet of foreign policy when they crush it when they see fit.

So then, your arguments against the war in Iraq are that"

The US is acting according to the intentions they state.

and that democracy cannot be foisted on Iraqis?

What are the nefarious US intentions if not to foist democracy? (Don't say oil or I'll blow you out of the water)

And; if sucessful, what is wrong with having democracy foisted over dictatorship?

According to your replys to my replys and reasoning, these are the only two issues that stop you from being a right wing nut flag waver machine gun tot'n idiot such as myself.

Lonius, you are a warmonger at heart, wait till Craig finds out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

LOL.

Actually, I am a business owner with a some idea of how fiscal incentives work. The previous owner of the business (whom I worked for before owning) offered 'profit-sharing', through bonus incentives. This was mostly geared at keeping motivated employees whom were deemed valuable.

I enjoy working, and have to date (I am now 36) collected 1 'unemployment cheque' thus far in my adult life. (After the restaurant I used to work in was sold, and I got my 'walking papers').

I feel that one only needs to look in the classified ads to see how much opportunity there is, and welfare burns my backside.

As a socialist-leaning individual, I do not have to think that 'everyone should get a free ride'. As Marx (and some before him) said, "From each according to their ability". I vehemently think that this should include 'work for welfare', yet it is the gov't itself that seems to foil this, as they are certain to mis-manage it.

What are the nefarious US intentions if not to foist democracy? (Don't say oil or I'll blow you out of the water)

And; if sucessful, what is wrong with having democracy foisted over dictatorship?

The US is 'foisting democracy' because the dictatorship was no longer serving US interests. Just like Manuel Noriega. A US Army employee for 31 years, and paid by the CIA for 15 (admitted to in court by the US gov't). He ceased to be a 'moderate' when he tried to uphold the treaty signed by Carter and Truillos (the honouring of which was demanded by a UN resolution, which also demanded the immediate cessation of the illegal invasion and withdrawl of US forces)

I would like to see where Saddam's cheques were coming from. His dictatorship ceased to serve the US interests and then the cry of 'Democracy! Freedom! War!' became louder than "Don't Trade With The Euro!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is 'foisting democracy' because the dictatorship was no longer serving US interests

So if you train an employee to become manager and he starts to work against you it is wrong to replace him? Not that it was that simple or that that was the case, just throwing it back at you.

Saddam may have served the US intrests at one time but certainly has done nothing to do so in the years scince the Iran war. So once we back him he is our buddy for life? Glad you don't influence foreign policy.

Speaking of that, the US has learned much from all this. Just last week Powell chasitised Algreria's President for not making more inroads on a variety of democratic fronts. Strong statements indeed. The days of what you oppose are comming to a slow end so guess you will have to find another country to bash LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not evil

Actually, either is the US. However, you are not a country with interests and alliances across the planet. If you were you would probably not have many left after they were all taken over by either Communism, Dictators such as Saddam or Religious Fanatics. Glad you run nothing but your keyboard.

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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • 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
  • Recently Browsing

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