Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 4:30 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,834 Year: 9,870/19,786 Month: 2,292/2,119 Week: 328/724 Day: 53/114 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Iraq needed Saddam?
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3725
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1 of 52 (386956)
02-24-2007 11:13 PM


The following message was originally here at the "Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline" topic. It was a reply to a Percy message just upthread. I'll also quote the two there replies to the message.

Minnemooseus writes:

Percy writes:

...Saddam Hussein *was* a ruthless dictator and a destabilizing force in the Middle East,

While Saddam definitely was excessive and criminal in his actions, wasn't he actually a stabilizing force in the Middle East?

I personally suspect that a more moderate, but perhaps still rather ruthless version of Saddam is what Iraq needed and needs. What is going to be put into place, that will work better? I have no idea.

And, of course, there is always the ugly question of to what degree the United States were significant contributers to Saddam's excesses? Remember that photo of buddy-buddy Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld.

Moose

The replies:

Percy, in message 28 writes:

Minnemooseus writes:

While Saddam definitely was excessive and criminal in his actions, wasn't he actually a stabilizing force in the Middle East?

That's a good point post-Kuwait, leaving even less justification for the Bush war. What a waste. It is so sad.

--Percy

Archer Opterix, in message 29 writes:

While Saddam definitely was excessive and criminal in his actions, wasn't he actually a stabilizing force in the Middle East?

Of course. Just look at all those bodies they pull out of his mass graves.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

It's a very stabilized condition.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:20 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-25-2007 2:07 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 6 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-25-2007 2:12 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 10:18 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 39 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-27-2007 11:31 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3725
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 52 (386957)
02-24-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:13 PM


I was actually thinking about starting a new topic with some approximation of my message 1 content. Then that other topic came to life, and I put the material in there instead.

Part of my first message that wasn't quoted by the others:

Minnemooseus writes:

I personally suspect that a more moderate, but perhaps still rather ruthless version of Saddam is what Iraq needed and needs. What is going to be put into place, that will work better? I have no idea.

I'm not denying that Saddam was a very bad person. The question is, does Iraq need a "bad" (but not "very bad") person in order to function? Is Iraq now looking at decades of civil war, perhaps until a neo-Saddam finally takes charge?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:13 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-25-2007 12:29 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Omnivorous, posted 02-25-2007 12:37 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 9:54 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2008 4:21 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1770 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 3 of 52 (386963)
02-25-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:20 PM


Bad, but not Very Bad
Minnemooseus:

I'm not denying that Saddam was a very bad person. The question is, does Iraq need a "bad" (but not "very bad") person in order to function?

Surely you realize this is still terribly vague. For this question to make enough sense for anyone to discuss it in a practical way, more clarity is required about the kind of regime you propose. Specifically, what do you mean by 'bad, but not very bad'? What do you mean by 'function'?

Can you give us a picture of this? Just a few details. A sketch.

'Function,' for example. You suggest it means the absence of civil wars. Does it also mean the absence of genocide? Or is genocide OK as long as the face on the money stays the same?

And 'bad, but not very bad.' Does that mean shots to the head instead of prolonged torture? Labor camps instead of dungeons? Mental hospitals instead of labor camps?

The Iraqis need someone 'bad' like Saddam Hussein, you say, but not 'very bad' like Saddam Huseein. Would that be someone more like Pinochet? Mao? Milošević? Stalin? Pol Pot?

Do they need someone more like Baby Doc? Than Shwe? Mussolini? Castro? Amin?

How about Kim Jong-il? Is the North Korean model of functionality on the table?

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:20 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 02-25-2007 8:52 AM Archer Opteryx has responded
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2007 10:55 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 4 of 52 (386964)
02-25-2007 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:20 PM


Artificial Nation
It seems likely that only an authoritarian regime could hold Iraq together--the Brits and the French drew the current lines which contain the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--groups so mutually repelling that removing Sadam was like loosing nuclear bonds.

The predictable outcome of toppling Saddam--effective tripartite civil war--was both predictable and predicted. The neoconservatives assured us that we'd be welcomed as liberators by the "Iraqis"--an entity that has no real existence.

The Shiites are the majority in Iraq as in Iran--most other Middle Eastern nations have different demographics. Democracy in Iraq means Shiite rule, a prescription for ethnic revenge and a regime that supports terrorism and revolution in the name of "radical" Islam.

The GOP has always portrayed itself as the pragmatic, realpolitik party, but the geopolitical ignorance and arrogance of the U.S. invasion was monumental. We have sacrificed thousands of American lives, shattered tens of thousands of others, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, while at the same time alienating most of the world's Muslims, backhanding most of our allies, and strengthening the regimes most opposed to our interests. The likely result of "democracy" in Iraq will be a horror show of sectarian bloodletting and the destabilization of other Sunni-dominated states such as Saudi Arabia.

It reminds me of the WWII cartoon with two weary GIs: "Well, we liberated the hell outta that town." Ruins smoke and crumble in the background. Or the real Vietnam military spokesman 30 years later: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

What a bunch of maroons.

The division of Iraq into thirds seems the least dreadful outcome.

There's one thing I do know:
There's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia.

--B52s

Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Edited by Omnivorous, : all typos, all the time

Edited by Omnivorous, : ditto


Real things always push back.
-William James

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:20 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 02-25-2007 9:58 AM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 52 (386968)
02-25-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:13 PM


Sorry. Hit the 'submit' button too soon. see next post.

Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:13 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 52 (386969)
02-25-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:13 PM


Iraq needed Saddam?

I'm not sure if Iraq ever needed Sadam, But the U. S. certainly did. Sadam's belligerence gave the US a virtual hegemony in the middle east. I once had a brilliant professor of medieval history who taught that the golden rule of who got to rule is "I protect. Therefore I rule." As long as Sadam's neighbors were scared to death of him and looked to the US for protection, the US could set the limits and control the actions of what happened throughout the middle east. And in doing so we were admired by most of the world for holding the moral high ground. Unfortunately, the geniuses in the white-house have thrown that all away. I'm quite sure that Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld were convinced the the US would win the war quickly and cheaply (in which they were correct), and that Bush would be carried through the streets of Bagdad on the shoulders of a grateful Iraqi citizenry (which was a little wide of the mark). What the US has lost in lives, international influence, self-confidenced, and even economic stability is incalculable. And this at the hands of the conservative republicans who were most respected for their understanding of and ability to deal with international affairs. Those republicans who screamed for Clinton to provide an exit strategy whenever he tried to deal forcefully with international situations are not even mentioning exit strategy to Bush. They know there is no exit strategy. They know there is no exit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:13 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 52 (386991)
02-25-2007 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Archer Opteryx
02-25-2007 12:29 AM


Re: Bad, but not Very Bad
Archer Opterix

I really enjoy your posts Arch since you do give a lot of thought most times to what you are saying. Your response here, though emphasizing the horror perpetrated by men in power throughout history, nonetheless fails to answer the question " does Iraq need a "bad" (but not "very bad") person in order to function?"

Since, despite our abhorrence of these actions, we must also give an answer to the implied question of just what type of person do we require in order for there to be a stability in the region?
And there is the rub. Can a working democratic government exist before the people themselves are willing to let go tribal jealousies and work together at solving differences without violence? In other words, given the level of terror being forced upon the Iraqis from within, can a government eventually establish itself without first being bloody themselves?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-25-2007 12:29 AM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-25-2007 11:28 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 8 of 52 (386998)
02-25-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:20 PM


I'm not denying that Saddam was a very bad person. The question is, does Iraq need a "bad" (but not "very bad") person in order to function?

It's rather obvious (to me anyway) that some kind of repressive government is needed in Iraq now to stop the bloodshed.

It is also rather obvious (to me anyway) that the US had replaced Saddam as the current repressive government, but that it is losing what control it was able to exert. The country is now being divided up into fiefdoms whether the Botch administration realizes it or not, and I don't think we can do anything to stop that.

Is Iraq now looking at decades of civil war, perhaps until a neo-Saddam finally takes charge?

Or several mini-Saddams under a loose umbrella facade of a national government. A government of mutualism by thugs.

The same thing is happening in Afghanistan. And it was such an opportunity. If the US had stayed in Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq, set up an international provisional support system through the UN to provide services (security, education, roads, water, electricity, justice, etc) to transition to full local control over 20 years, they could have used it as a base to go after Al Queda -- as international criminals and to pressure other countries in the area to follow a program of reforms (instead of using them for black-ops 'renderings'?), it could have been a positive influence on the whole area, with the full international backing that we had going in to Afghanistan.

To me, it is telling of the incompetence of the Botch Administration that they HAD in Afghanistan what they THOUGHT they would get in Iraq - and didn't know it.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:20 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 52 (387000)
02-25-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Omnivorous
02-25-2007 12:37 AM


Re: Artificial Nation
Omnivorous writes:

quote:
It seems likely that only an authoritarian regime could hold Iraq together--the Brits and the French drew the current lines which contain the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--groups so mutually repelling that removing Sadam was like loosing nuclear bonds.

Correct, and that point about France and Britian having drawn the geopolitical entity we call Iraq is crucial. At its very beginning, the nation of Iraq was imposed upon the Middle East by Western powers. From the Arab perspective, it would seem there's little reason for Iraq to even exist. Its entire history has been spent under some sort of military or police domination. It has never known anything like what we consider "freedom", or even "democracy".

One of the biggest Bush lies of all has been this nonsense about how the people of Iraq "yearn for freedom". I think we all see by now that what the people of Iraq yearn for is revenge. The shia want revenge on the sunni and vice versa. Their religion teaches them to yearn for that revenge.

The people of Iraq are at war with each other because they believe that their god wants them to be at war with each other. It's possible that we could put enough troops into the country to force some sort of shaky peace on them, but the people of Iraq have proved themselves fully willing and quite capable of carrying vengeful grudges for centuries. By the logic being used to justify our continued presence there - that the shaky government of Iraq will implode if we leave now - we will never be able to leave because the people of Iraq will never lose their desire for revenge on one another. These people will simply not fit together into any political whole. Iraq can't exist as anything resembling what we would call a free nation.

I hate to sound so cynical, but unless someone can show me some damn strong evidence that the power of religion over the Iraqi people is waning rapidly - rather than growing rapidly, which appears to me to be what's happening - then I don't believe there's any hope at all for a peaceful future in Iraq, at least not until a bloody civil war plays itself out and/or the territory of Iraq is absorbed into other, existing states.


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Omnivorous, posted 02-25-2007 12:37 AM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 10:21 AM berberry has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 10 of 52 (387005)
02-25-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:13 PM


Mission Drift and Reality
The "mission" has changed so many times in Iraq that it makes "Rosemary's Baby" head seem to stand still.

But what we are left with today is a peacekeeping mission. After 5 years of war this is all that is left.

The problem with this mission is that we are also one of the aggressors, so this mission is terminally compromised. We cannot accomplish the mission and nobody else can accomplish it as long as our troops remain there.

Conclusion: get out, turn the keys over to the UN and say "take it or leave it" -- and then fund the UN mission (because it is our fault).

That is my take on it. Should take about 6 months to implement.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:13 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by CK, posted 02-25-2007 2:44 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 11 of 52 (387006)
02-25-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by berberry
02-25-2007 9:58 AM


Re: Artificial Nation
Their religion teaches them to yearn for that revenge.

Their culture. The fundamentalists can use their religion as an excuse, but it is the culture that teaches.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 02-25-2007 9:58 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by berberry, posted 02-25-2007 11:21 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 52 (387015)
02-25-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Archer Opteryx
02-25-2007 12:29 AM


Re: Bad, but not Very Bad
I am with you on this, Archer. I am fundamentally unprepared to accept the rather trite premise that those people – whoever they are – are incapable of governing themselves without the presence of a strongman. I have heard this excuse too many times. I’ve heard it from Russians about Russia, for example. Ever since Ivan the Terrible, Russia has been governed by powerful dictators or dictatorial regimes, so the story goes. Clearly, then, the people are incapable of living their lives peacefully without the presence of a powerful central authority. A nice excuse for a would-be dictator.

I would say that all that is required to show the fallacious nature of this premise is to discover whether there are any countries which, having thrown off a tradition of strongman-type central authority have managed, somehow, to “make it” in its absence. In that vein, I’d like to present one example: Ukraine.

Ukraine is an interesting case. Since around 988 (Vladimir I, King of Kiev and the Rus), it has been variously under one monarch, dictator, or foreign domination or the other. More recently it was one of the main republics under the Soviet Union. Unlike many other East European countries, it did not have the Soviet system imposed on it. It was, rather, one of the countries that invented it. For the last five hundred years or so, it had no tradition of nationhood as such (parts of modern Ukraine belonged variously to Poland, Russia, Romania, etc). It would seem, under the circumstances, to be an unlikely candidate for democracy. And yet, after a somewhat rocky start, democracy has taken hold there. In spite of serious ethnic/cultural differences (the western half of the country – much of it formerly Polish and speaking Ukrainian – wishes to become westernized, whereas the eastern half of the country – much of it formerly Russian and speaking Russian – wishes to rejoin the Russian Federation). One of the first post-independence presidents, Leonid Kuchma, made the mistake of thinking his countrymen would tolerate a new dictator, and attempted to emulate Vladimir Putin of Russia (or possibly, in his heart of hearts, Alexander Lukashenko, the absolute dictator of Belarus). The people, with absolutely NO tradition of democracy, rose up against him in the Orange Revolution. He and his corrupt cronies were ousted – peacefully, no less – and democracy restored. Whether it will last is another story.

Now the obvious counter to this is that the nation had no tradition of violence and thus an analogy to the Middle East is invalid. This is untrue. Ukraine was one of the hearts of the anti-Bolshevik counter revolution (used to be known as White Russia). The Kosacki constantly fought either against or for the central authorities. Stalin, because of widespread anti-Soviet sentiment, conducted a virtual campaign of genocide against ethnic Ukrainians in an effort to retain control. Even today, the amount of distrust and even occasional naked hatred between western Ukrainians and eastern Ukrainians is palpable. And yet…

To bring this into line with the OP concerning the need for a dictator in Iraq, I firmly reject that premise. Invading Iraq may be questionable, but not on the grounds that toppling Hussein was in and of itself wrong. I give you as an example the incredible strides made in Iraqi Kurdistan under the umbrella of Allied airpower following the first Gulf War. Although not “democratic” per se, the Kurds were making enormous strides in developing a viable, relatively egalitarian and moreover peaceful society. Given another decade, a more-or-less democratic, stable nation could have emerged in northern Iraq. The moral failure of the invasion was not the invasion itself, but rather the absolute failure to recognize the volatile situation on the ground – as nator said, the descent into chaos and civil war was predictable – and plan for post-invasion. I hold the Bush administration morally, ethically, and pragmatically culpable for that. Omni put it right: the only chance for stability post-Saddam was to recognize the de-facto partition of Iraq: a Kurdistan (which Turkey was prepared to go to war to prevent), a Sunni more-or-less secular nation, and a Shia theocracy. All of which would have been better than the current situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-25-2007 12:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 02-25-2007 11:13 AM Quetzal has responded
 Message 43 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-23-2014 10:36 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 13 of 52 (387018)
02-25-2007 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
02-25-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Bad, but not Very Bad
I am fundamentally unprepared to accept the rather trite premise that those people – whoever they are – are incapable of governing themselves without the presence of a strongman.

Ok, so you suggest:

the only chance for stability post-Saddam was to recognize the de-facto partition of Iraq: a Kurdistan (which Turkey was prepared to go to war to prevent), a Sunni more-or-less secular nation, and a Shia theocracy.

Does this not rather admit that "those people" are incapable of governing themselves, full-stop, and need separating?

I'm certainly in favour of your suggestion, though I watch Turkey with interest...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2007 10:55 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2007 5:28 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 02-25-2007 5:30 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 02-25-2007 5:34 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Omnivorous, posted 02-25-2007 5:36 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 52 (387021)
02-25-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
02-25-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Artificial Nation
Point taken.


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 10:21 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Omnivorous, posted 02-25-2007 5:38 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 15 of 52 (387039)
02-25-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
02-25-2007 10:18 AM


Re: Mission Drift and Reality
quote:
Conclusion: get out, turn the keys over to the UN and say "take it or leave it"

There is no chance at all that the UN would take over - not a chance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 10:18 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2007 8:03 PM CK has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019