Jump to content

America's role, PART 2!!


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Litvyak:

quote:

That comment about in order for some to get richer, others have to get poorer is the biggest load of crap that I have ever heard.


If everybody was to get rich, nobody would be rich... you can't be rich unless others are poor. The poorer everybody else is, the richer you become. Being rich isn't about how much money you have, but how much money you have in relation to how much everybody else has.


I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Said just that way I can agree with that statement. In the capitalism thread(s) you always seemed to say "off the backs" of others which to me implies cheating, stealing, and exploitation. The way you just said it is a truism I beleive.

Well darling, IÔÇÖm not entirely sure how much is exploitation and such not and how much is leadership and intelligence, but there is generally a mix of both involved.

quote:

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you Dragon Lady but you often have the most quotable quotes.

DoesnÔÇÖt bother me at all, I actually like arguing.

quote:

That comment about in order for some to get richer, others have to get poorer is the biggest load of crap that I have ever heard.

What? you think that the economy is stagnant? that there is this amount of money and no more? The economy is a pie and some have a bigger slice then others?

Go back to school folks, because you AIN'T got a clue!!

I think Litvyak summed up my point nicely, wealth and poverty are relative and one is necessary to define the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I can go for that.

I thought that you guys were too intelligent to fall for such goofy leftist propaganda. Glad to see that I was correct.

Yes, it is all a matter of degrees, but in the US, some of the poorest in the country would be rich in other countries.

Pretty weird, the bar for poverty continues to go up. I think that it is now $20,000 and a family lives in poverty, in africa most families are lucky to make a dollar a day.

Yes, the rich are rich, but our poor are MUCH richer then ANY other countries poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Pretty weird, the bar for poverty continues to go up. I think that it is now $20,000 and a family lives in poverty, in africa most families are lucky to make a dollar a day.

Federal Poverty Guidelines They go by the number of people in the household and range from $8,860 to $36,580 for 1 to 10 people respectively. Though I think most people would be hard pressed to get by with less than $20k and still live relatively comfortably. Though I admit when I had my own place before I started going to school I was getting by on $15k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Charles Lindsey:

[QB]
Nah, what he is doing is pointing out that most leftist arguments are based in taking what the media and all legitimate authorities say, and turning around and saying "It's all wrong, it's all a conspiracy, and we should do the exact opposite". Evidence and facts supporting the opposing view aren't needed, the leftists just know that the traditional/acceptable/logical/rational view is wrong, and the opposite is right.

Then why didn't he say so? And you actualy saw that from that article? Sheesh I'm getting old. You rewrote his article in two sentences with the proper introduction, reasons, and summary. Must be that new math.


The anti-intellectualism and anti-common sense arguments were implict in the article, if I remember it correctly.

quote:

quote:

It'd be unfair to George W. Bush and his brothers if they COULDNT run for office because one of the others was in office.

Tough. Life ain't fair.

Glad we agree on the rest though.


Life may not be fair, but the law is designed to be fair, and if we want to elect an entire family to various offices in the US, so be it. It's our grave or blessing.

quote:

Because your points are bogus.


I'd love for actual analysis on why.

quote:

Saddam is:

1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them

Cuba, China, lots of other nations. Why Iraq? Why now?

That still doesn't make the FACT that I stated untrue that he's oppressing his people, violating their rights, and has no problem killing them. It also doesn't answer that by invading we'd stop him. Just because there are lots of murderers doesn't mean that we shouldn't imprison or kill the ones we catch. Just because the point can be applied to other countries doesn't make the point untrue or answer it as a reason to act.

quote:

2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements

So? It's the UN's problem. Of which we are part.

It's our problem if the UN won't do what needs to be done to protect the interests of it's member nations.

quote:

3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons

So?

So it's in violation of various international treaties. So it's in violation of the cease-fire/peace agreement after the gulf-war. So it places the US and our allies at threat. And so it could cause us harm if we don't rememdy it.

quote:

4. Anti-America

Lamest one. So is Iran and most of Islam though the some of the governments are officially our allies.

Combine it with all of the other points, it's just a multiplier of the threat of attack, danger, etc. Also, it's not lame, it's true, and it's a good piece of partial justification for defense.

quote:

5. A totalitarian dictator

Castro

Castro

...isn't Saddam. Is more rational than Saddam. Isn't in charge of Iraq. Isn't a threat. Again, just because other violations exist doesn't demonstrate a reason why we shouldn't attack Iraq. All of my points support the common premise of attacking Iraq, and you can't make ALL of my points apply to any other country, especially the logic that Saddam could and would easily give WMDs to terrorists.

quote:

6. Irrational in terms of international actions

Dunno this one pretty lame too.

Right, lame is such a nice...arbitrary term. Acting against irrational leaders is the same as locking up mentally ill people. If they are violent and likely to do something illogical, they need to be watched and sedated. Saddam is violent (2 wars) and needs to be sedated (or killed).

quote:

7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons

So?

Violation of NPT. Would give him way too much power over the middle east and the rest of the world. It'd make him a threat to US, especially with his propensity to help terrorist organizations. (he helped Hamas, no reason he won't help Bin Laden)

quote:

8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers)

This is tougher. I don't think his rewards started as incentives but now that everyone knows about them yes it is now an incentive.

You put all of the points together, and there is virtually NOTHING that can outweigh the reasoning behind an attack on Iraq since what's in the balance is our lives.

Ok, now to respond to that load of **it article. It's sad when articles are so shallow that it makes you think a high school drop out wrote them, but here goes.

quote:

The U.S. has a history of supporting "evil" and "murderous" tyrants, including Saddam Hussein. Stalin, with whom the U.S. allied during WWII, was one of the worst. The Clinton administration used the U.S. military to shore up Aristide in Haiti. The U.S. has financed and supported evil, murderous tyrants in Africa for the last 30 years. The U.S. did nothing about Pol Pot, one of the worst murderers of the 20th century. U.S. ally Marcos, of the Philippines, was an "evil" suppressor and exploiter of "his own people." Clinton even had the U.S. military provide protection for Aidid in Somalia.

1. So...WHAT? Under Fletcher (the author's) view, the fact that we EVER supported slavery, or had bad working conditions, etc means that we should never take a stance against it. Just because we have historically supported "evil" regimes doesn't mean that we are wrong in deciding to go against them, and in fact, for doing so, it'll make us look good. (The author contends that if I help a murderer, then I realize the error of my ways one day and kill the murderer, that somehow everyone will think i'm MORE evil because of it. At the very least, i look a little bit better)

2. History doesn't matter at all. The people who are a threat to us are those that are oppressed by their governments and fed propoganda. They know little about history, will learn little about history, and thus freeing them is infintely more important than looking good in the eyes of history.

quote:

It is doubtful that the means used to kill the citizens of a country is much of a consideration to those killed. However, from where the "murderous tyrant" receives support and the fact of his actions are important. Thus, U.S. policy in this regard has earned the enmity of many of the world's people. This assertion as reason to attack Iraq is a non-starter that will be recognized by most as the hypocrisy it represents, earning even more enmity and increasing risks for Americans.


Uhh, right, the fact we stop an evil dictator from killing his people and being a threat to Americans and Arabs, is going to make everyone hate us. I love how much analysis this author gives, really. The author also fails to recognize that some things are more important than life (otherwise no one would ever volunteer to fight in a war). Sure, people die in wars, and those people won't be able to tell the difference between what killed them, but if they had a choice, I bet that the vote would show they'd all rather take the *risk* of dying instead of living under oppression for the rest of their lives and getting killed by Saddam one day.

quote:

That Saddam has "used weapons of mass destruction against his own people" is technically untrue. Iraq is the least ethnically and religiously homogeneous of the Middle Eastern oil-producing states. The Shiites represent two-thirds of the population. The other third is divided between the Kurds and the non-Kurdish, smaller population of Sunni Muslims, of which Saddam is a member. He has used chemical weapons against the other two groups, which are technically not "his own people."


Gee, so ethnocide/genocide is ALLRIGHT? Technically, if President Lincon decided to kill every black instead of freeing them, he wouldn't have killed his own people since they aren't white. Where did you dig up this idiot? He writes to defend a point without realizing the implications of it.

Saddam used WMDs against PEOPLE THEN, the fact they were people WITHIN HIS OWN COUNTRY makes it worse. You don't typically gas or nuke people, and that's a common international position, except for a few fringe countries like Iraq.

quote:

Saddam also used these weapons against the Iranians without the U.S. protesting or taking action, because he was an ally and recipient of U.S. military aid while the Iranians were considered the enemy. Thus, for the U.S. to base an attack against Saddam on his use of these weapons is not supportable and will be seen as the hypocrisy it represents.


This hypocrisy argument is stupid and historically disproven. Countries that at one time were friends can become enemies without being bad, since national policies, and thus animosities between nations, can change over time. At the time, Iran was more of a threat to the US than Iraq was so we helped Iraq. Now Iraq is a threat and must be eliminated. Fletcher keeps throwing out arguments that just cloud the issue. He never actually attacks the ANALYSIS that WMDs being used are bad, especially by Iraq, and must be stopped. Instead, he turns to avoiding the issue of the weapons and their use, and decides to point out POTENTIAL HYPOCRICY which never proves an argument wrong. (ex. Just because I say that the death penalty is wrong one day doesn't mean I can't come around a year later and say that it's good because it deters crime. The analysis in the 2nd instance always supercedes the first position since humans CAN CHANGE ADVOCACIES.)

Also, it's supportable cause he's violating international agreements, he'd become a regional hedgemon (destabilizing the area), and he'd be a threat to the US. Fletcher never answers any of these points, nor does he prove how Saddam having WMDs is a good/right thing, which is what he needs to do to disprove the assumptions he is attempting to.

quote:

That Saddam is actively "seeking to acquire" nuclear technology is probably true. It is also nothing new. And the U.S. government knows where the technology is available as well as who is selling it. The Chinese and the North Koreans are purveyors of this and other military technology to terrorist states in the Middle East. But what has the U.S. done regarding these terrorist-supporting states?


1. We just learned about North Korea, AFTER the article was written. The author's point is invalid.

2. China and NK are rational actors. They aren't going to start an aggressive war with anyone since they know retaliation would be devestating. They also have no reason to want the downfall or damage to the US since they need us for their economies.

3. We can't do anything about China or NK if we wanted to since China has nuclear weapons and doesn't want us there, which is the same exact reason why we need to take care of Saddam now BEFORE he gets Nuclear weapons and can do whatever he wants (and he has proven in the past he doesn't care about deterrance which keeps China from attacking us)

quote:

Under Clinton, the U.S. helped the North Koreans build their nuclear power assets. With Republicans in control of Congress, the U.S. bestowed permanent favored nation trading status on China. And the U.S. has, recently, chosen a very low profile in its differences with North Korea over arms and technology sales to enemies of America.

1. NK was also named in Bush's axis of evil. We aren't being friends with them.

2. If the author knew ANYTHING, he'd realize that the "Nuclear power assets" were in exchange for NOT DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. There's a SIGNIFICANT difference between the two programs.

quote:

That Bush's intended action against Iraq is being based on this concept demonstrates weakness on the part of the U.S. and will confirm the contention of many that the U.S. is an international bully. It is willing to give the only other real international military power and its satellite communist state a "pass" on supplying U.S. enemies with weapons technology because of their size and power, but it is willing to attack the small, relatively weak purchaser. This action will serve to further weaken U.S. prestige and will "open the gate" for others to "bully" smaller states as they desire.


Uhh:

1. We don't have anything to do about China.

2. China isn't going to sell their weapons to terrorists, cause they know that their economy will go to hell if they piss off the US, and there would probably be an overthrow of the government because of that (regimes usually want to stay in power, and recent news articles prove that with Jiang).

3. The author hasn't proven yet how people that don't currently see us as a bully are going to see us as a bully after an Iraq attack, nor does he prove how attacking Iraq to stop the points I listed earlier are bad.

quote:

If Bush desires to oust Saddam because he has ties "to al-Qaeda" and is harboring its members, fairness and consistency demand that he also oust the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and even the new U.S.-backed interim government of Afghanistan that is setting Taliban and al-Qaeda members free as fast as the U.S. military captures them.


Fletcher's such a moron. First, you can apply all of my earlier arguments about how Iraq's the only nation that ALL of my #ed points applies to. Also apply my earlier arguments about how we have to stop every instance we can. Politically, we can't go after every nation in the world at the same time. We need to start with worst threat and work down. Third, who says we aren't going to get all of the others? It'd be pretty stupid for us to announce a war on all "bad" nations when we are trying to get them to support us for now. Just because the administration is smart and hasn't said we are going after everyone doesn't mean that we ARENT. The author is naive.

quote:

The Saudis are the source of the lion's share of al-Qaeda and have told the U.S. it is "out of the question" for the U.S. to question members within Saudi Arabia. Iran has admitted that al-Qaeda is seeking refuge from the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Ditto Pakistan. Yemen is home to terrorists, including al-Qaeda.


Ok, guess I gotta take the more leftist view for a second. Saudia Arabia is a nation that we've had mutual support with for awhile, so Saudia Arabia has a right to refuse questioning citizens the same as the US has the right to stop Iraq or Canada from questioning OUR citizens. Regardless of right/wrong, Saudia Arabia's citizens have a right to some degree of protection from foreign powers.

quote:

Failure to target these regimes also will raise questions about the real reasons behind an attack on Iraq and will present U.S. policy as duplicitous and hypocritical.


1. There's been no stated impact to hypocricy, especially since no one is going to be more pissed at the US after an attack than before it, except the elite leadership of hostile countries.

2. Still no evidence we aren't going after all of the others. US policy is that we should be able to fight a war on two fronts. It'd be stupid and suicide to try and fight one on 5 or 6.

quote:

If Bush acts against Saddam because he "supports terrorism" and supplies weapons "to terrorists," for the sake of policy consistency and U.S. credibility he also must act against the Saudis and the Iranians. The Saudis have provided more money to families of terrorists than Iraq has, and the Iranians shipped a boatload of weapons to terrorists in Israel.


There's a difference between individual support and govermental support. The Iraqi GOVERNMENT supplies support and money. Saudia Arabia's rich people might. You don't declare a war on a country because a few of their citizens did something wrong. You declare a war on a country because their government did something wrong and is refusing to try and help. Saudia Arabia's government and others are helping as much as they can. And again, even if they aren't, it doesn't mitigate the reasons for attacking Iraq, which is the point that the author SAID he was trying to make. He's failing so far.

quote:

Saddam Harbored Abu Nidal

In his speech on Oct. 7, Bush attempted to tie Saddam to the terrorist killing of American citizens by Abu Nidal in the Mediterranean years ago. This was disingenuous on the part of Bush because he has provided support for Yasser Arafat even though the U.S. government is aware of Arafat's role in similar terrorist acts, including his involvement in the Achille Lauro incident.


Don't agree with Bush's rhetoric here, but it probably swayed some sheep in the population.

quote:

Saddam Has Violated U.N. Sanctions

Bush offering that Saddam has "violated U.N. sanctions for 11 years" as a reason to attack Iraq just doesn't "wash." Is the U.S. the enforcer for the U.N.? If the U.S. is to undertake the worldwide enforcement of U.N. sanctions that are currently being violated, its military needs to be greatly increased.


Uhh, "just not washing" isn't an argument. The U.S. is the primary enforcer for the UN, and our military does need to be increased. The author still doesn't provide justification for why violations of the UN resolutions is OK, nor does he answer the analysis behind why those resolutions were made in the first place, specifically on Iraq.

quote:

Bush's contention of being "a friend" to the "oppressed" people of Iraq and bringing "democracy" to them through the ouster of Saddam has a noble sound to it. But what are the facts? Who is oppressed? Where can "democracy" be found in the Middle East?

Iraq is the only Middle East nation, other than Israel, that has a non-Islamic, secular government. Except those bent on overthrowing Saddam, the citizens of Iraq are probably less oppressed than those in the other nations with Islamic governments.


They are all oppressed, and all need to be freed. Iraq is the best target for right now. Fletcher never answers that Iraq is the best target/option for right now. Waiting for an answer by Fletcher...waiting...waiting...nope, there isn't one, because Fletcher can't provide one.

quote:

This is particularly true for women. In the other Islamic countries they are deprived of many rights afforded male citizens, including education. In Iraq they are educated participants in government and society. What would be the status of anyone attempting to oust the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs of Iran or the kings of the other countries?

Iraq has a higher per capita GNP than Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen. It is over four times greater than that of U.S. ally Egypt. Iraq also provides health-care services and education.

So, if Bush is being genuine about enforcing "democracy" in the Middle East, the facts indicate that he should begin in any country other than Iraq. Egypt would be a good place to begin this effort. Or maybe Saudi Arabia.


Wow, starting with people likely to support us is a good idea. Fletcher is obviously an idiot, otherwise he wouldn't want to get into a war with ALL Arab nations at the same time and get all of our troops killed.

Oh yeah, and one major flaws in Fletcher's argument is he isn't looking at reasons for attacking Iraq as a whole. Sure, other countries may have WMDs or use them. Sure, other countries may be anti-american. Sure, other countries may oppress rights. But none of the other countries ARE Iraq, and meet ALL of the reasons for attacking Iraq.

quote:

Saddam 'Poses an Imminent Threat' to America

Bush has failed to present the case that Saddam's regime "poses an imminent threat" to America. He has also failed to substantiate this claim to the intelligence committees of Congress. Highly placed government officials have refuted Bush's assertions and presented contradictory testimony to congressional committees.

This arugment is counter-intuitive. If the officials are so "highly placed", and it could be confimred they are "highly placed", they'd be fired by now. Obviously, there's no reason to suspect them as "highly placed".

Also, "immenent" may be wrong, but no one has proven he isn't a threat now or in the future, which is what needs to be done to disprove attacking Iraq as a good thing.

quote:

The No. 2 executive of the CIA, speaking for the director before Congress on Oct. 2, stated that the probability of an attack by Saddam against U.S. interests in the foreseeable future is "low."

The CIA, which is charged with the responsibility of knowing about such things, has gone on record warning that attacking Iraq could increase terror. It would put Saddam in a position of having nothing to lose, and he would probably attempt to cause as much damage as possible if he knows he is going out.

He also sent a second letter pointing out that Iraq is a threat and his statements in no way should be used to de-justify an attack on Iraq. He still thinks attacking Iraq is a prudent course of action.

quote:

Bush's assertion that Saddam "stands alone" as an imminent threat was contradicted by the secretary of defense, who told Congress earlier this year, "Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran are developing weapons of terror and giving them to terrorists." The ex-director of the FBI recently told Congress that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism.


Look at a map, after taking out Iraq, we'll be in a perfect position to attack Iran since Iran would be surrounded by US support. Also, "weapons of terror" are not "weapons of mass destruction".

quote:

Should not everyone question why the president of the United States is assiduously pursuing a war on the basis of assertions that are not substantiated and are actually refuted by the secretary of defense and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency? It is not unpatriotic to ask this question. There is a good reason for it.


What reason? Some crackpot's unfounded assertions that are probably now going to be supported by more unfounded assertions that are typical attacks against politicans? I haven't read the rest yet (responding part by part), so let's find out!

quote:

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a strong proclivity for this most basic of human characteristics: self-preservation. He has been rationally brutal in his use of any weapons at his disposal to ensure his power and longevity. He has also demonstrated this rationality by choosing not to use certain weapons against U.S. forces or Israel during the Gulf War because their use would have resulted in the opposite of self-preservation.


He also went against this rationale by attacking Kuwait in the first place, refusing to concded to US demands, and by refusing to admit weapons inspectors and by attempting to develop WMDs.

quote:

Why, then, would this man suddenly decide to act in a way he knows would result in self-destruction? Logic argues he would not.


He's not logical buddy.

quote:

Therefore, to determine why President Bush is rushing into a war that may cause more, rather than less, peril for Americans, possibly result in thousands of American military dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, cost as much as $200 billion, possibly put the entire Middle East in conflict, drive the price of oil to heights disastrous for the U.S. economy, and result in the U.S. being in a Middle Eastern quagmire for decades, it is necessary to look beyond the president's assertions.

1. Saddam must be a threat.

2. None of the paragraph is supported by fact.

quote:

The Oil Connection

It is necessary to look at U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil and at a map of the Middle East and its recent history and current trends.

The U.S. imports over 60 percent of the oil it consumes. Nine percent of it comes from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has 25 percent of known world reserves under its sands. Militant Islam is sweeping the Middle East. Over 80 percent of Kuwait citizens say they hate America and think it got what it deserved on Sept. 11, 2001. A super majority of Saudi citizens have the same opinion.


I answered this argument previous to the article (in #ed format, just like my reasons for attacking Iraq), and others answered it numerous times afterwards. His oil justifcation is an asswertion which makes no logical sense and runs counter to fact.

quote:

Iraq is strategically located, surrounded by Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. It has the largest conventional military that has threatening potential for its neighbors, which is threatening to the U.S. because of oil dependence that is much worse after eight years of Bill Clinton's policies.

Is it possible the concern is about the potential disruption of oil supplies by militant Islamic influence, coupled with the decline of corrupt, suppressionist regimes such as that of the Saudis and the potential of the region's only military power, Iraq, to seize on the opportunities that might be presented to it as a result? Certainly!

Bush is beating the drums of war not to deter further terrorism, as he says, but to insure the U.S. supply of oil. Apparently, a decision has been made that the threat to the U.S. economy of the resulting increase in the price of oil and the potential negative impact of the war is much less an evil than the potential devastation of the U.S. economy that could result from control of Middle Eastern oil by Saddam's regime or, worse, yet, that control allied with militant, anti-Western Islamic terrorist regimes.


Ok, even if it is for oil (which it obviously isn't). SO WHAT? We're keeping our interests AND solving all of those points I named. Lets find the downside...wait...wait...there ISNT A DOWNSIDE TO IT. We get our oil and we get rid of Saddam who is bad for a large number of reasons.

quote:

Why Not Containment?

What about containment? After all, the U.S. and the rest of the West contained the Soviet Union for almost five decades. Why not have a policy of containment toward Iraq, militant Islam and the potential disruption of oil flows?

The U.S. and other Western economies were not dependent upon anything from the Soviet Union, and militant Islam cares more about its religious cause than it does about its prosperity, or the oil on which the West they hate is dependent. In fact, destruction of Western economies is its goal.

Thus, given its demonstrated nature, it is doubtful a well-armed Islam, especially with weapons of mass destruction, could be sufficiently contained to ensure the continued flow of oil. So, Bush is leading the U.S. to war not to prevent terrorism, but for self-preservation, preservation of the U.S. economy, which is tantamount to preservation of the United States of America.

1. Containment empirically fails on Iraq.

2. If USSR didn't have such a strong military, invading and saving the people from oppression would have probably been better for them, and would have allowed their economy to recover by now (as it is, Russia is set back significantly techknowlogically).

3. Preservation of the United States of America is a GOOD THING. Is Fletcher some sort of leftist nutcase that assumes Americans believe in some sort of secular entity that supercedes US soverignity?

quote:

I've also read in previous posts that working on the economy and education is "too hard" and it was even suggested that I should provide a solution. Well I didn't run for office on those platforms and don't have the resources we provide our president to do those very things. Too hard?

I think the fact that we elected Bush to office would seem to indicate the job doesn't require much intellectual muscle or at least that is what some would have us beleive. Some thought it was more important to have a guy who wasn't doing his intern and was a "moral"man. Now expecting him to do the things he was elected to do is "too hard"

I too am stuck on this one.


He did run on specific proposals, it's not his fault if they don't work or aren't passed.

Also, we can't hold the government to such a high standard. I, and most of the people on this board (even some of those I disagree with) are probably more intelligent than Bush. If we can't come up with cure-all solutions, it's counter-intuitive to criticize Bush for the same shortcomings. The government isn't God and isn't the cure-all for everything. People need to work for solutions, not tell the government to do it for them (unless it's with a clear sense of purpose and advocacy. Why do you think you don't see many large pro-education rallies by groups that support education? It's because they advocate money being spent on education, but can't come up with a CLEAR ADVOCACY/PLAN to tell people to write to their congressmen/senators to support)

quote:

Personally I don't believe it is the Federal Governments responsibility to regulate education. It should be left up to the states, more specifically the communities to educate the children.

Education isn't accomplised by throwing away money at teachers that suck.

Fire all teachers who can't teach, screw the unions, hire people that actually care and actually try to teach.


I agree, go back to the Constitution. It's not a Federal power to regulate education. It's honestly not even a federal perogative to regulate health care. Funny how we WANT big brother. It'll be even more funny when we realize that big brother is BAD.

quote:

Honestly, this is so appropriate today. I had a composition class this morning where half the class didn't show up to begin and large portion, including myself, walked out. Why? Because the teacher sucks... she wasted a huge portion of class time having a discussion with a student about crime statistics and minorities which was further off topic for class than this post is for this thread. When another student asked her if we would bring the class discussion back on topic or go for a break, she blew up. Yes, the teacher has had numerous complaints (I had her last semester, too), and the only reason she still has a job is because she's in the union.

Side rant:

Those teachers are fun. They obviously have no intelligence, so just wait till they say something stupid and make them feel like idiots. Wait till the next instance, repeat. Eventually they'll find out they are stupid and go off crying. If they don't you get the satisfaction of making a teacher look like an idiot.

quote:

What? Everyone is an idiot now? Come now. I'm very impressed with Dredd and others on this board. It may not be the best and it may be faltering but it does work.

I went through 7 yrs of public education which were notably bad due to disciplinary problems in the classroom. For most of the time, I was able to leave the class whenever I wanted to go to an enrichment classroom where there was actual education. Past that I went to parochial school which is sort of privatized. Yeah, PS doesn't really work.

quote:

Spoiled Rancid

By Barry Crimmins


In response to that genius article, I can top it all. Liberals response to anything resembling a logical solution to a problem that might cost human life:

-Your inhumane scum that wants people to die and you only care about the big evil capitalistic corporations.

quote:

It has got to be hard for you Jag...the guy your pulling for is hated by so many foreign and domestic it's not even funny....plus under his watch, corporate America has raped and pillaged better then any Viking I ever heard of leaving us with a broken and thoroughly ravaged economy.....all the while rolling back our civil liberties....


Uhh, i'd love to see your logic behind how Bush uniquely caused the corporate corruption and Gore or Clinton would have been able to stop it. Same thing with the economy.

quote:

Do any of you think that would be the case with North Korea? I will guarantee you an alternate plan , be it sanctions or a diplomatic approach will be adopted. Bush wants an easy victory just in time for the elections or the appearance that it will be easy to provide coattails to regain the majority in the senate.


He also doesn't want to piss off China, or get our troops all killed in jungle warfare like Vietnam. Oh yeah, and with NK, another plan would probably work (proven historically). Saddam, it wouldn't.

quote:

Silly me, I thought we were on the brink of destroying the world for decades to prevent the spread of socialist ideas. How many Americans died in Korea and Viet Nam fighting communism? I imagine most people would be worried about the spread of marxist ideals in the USA.


I'm not sure what was sarcasm and what wasn't, but we were on the brink of destroying the world to stop Communism (which was really an oppressive totalitarian regime).

quote:

Lotharr you act as if every person who makes more money than someone else is gaining that money through trickery and exploitation, not the fact that the person making less may be a drug addict and a high school dropout.

Success in life is determined by what choices we make.


THANK YOU! Too bad no one in the government would ever see that.

Small related rant:

The federal government advocates education, and drug benefits, and social security. Where, exactly, in the Constitution, are ANY of those powers delegated to the national government? Nowhere.

Ok, but they are good things, right? Helping people is good? Sure, helping people is a good thing. Sure, it goes against "all powers not delegated to the fed are state powers", but it's a good thing, so lets stick with it.

So, the fed does what it can to help everyone, on and on, day after day, year after year. Politicans campaign on the posititons to help everyone all the time, making the government out to be the cure all to any and all problems.

Why would the politicans run on positions that don't empirically work and are unconstitutional? Because they want POWER. They want people to become COMPLACENT and DEPEND on the government. It makes it much easier to manipulate people then. Governments don't want to recognize that things that happen are based on CHOICES that you make and you can help YOURSELF.

In response to my last post, read the points, answer them all WHOLISTICALLY, not individually. Put em all together and there are many reasons why Saddam going bye-bye is good and justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The anti-intellectualism and anti-common sense arguments were implict in the article, if I remember it correctly.

Was trying to give you a compliment dude.

He talked about a defeated intellectualist but then went off on a tangent and never explained what a defeated intellectualist was. He did that several times on different points. Talk about a high school drop out writing an article.

Truth be told it sounds like one of my bug reports. Like when I say "go tow something". I know how I tow stuff so I mistakenly assume every one else does. Gives Derek fits. This dude was the same way. He knew what he was talking about but didn't bother to explain it to anyone else.

quote:

Life may not be fair, but the law is designed to be fair, and if we want to elect an entire family to various offices in the US, so be it. It's our grave or blessing.

It'll help dig our grave. Read my response to Dragon Lady. I summed it up there. Why should we be "fair" to my six ficticious people when the potential for harm is so great? The potential for harm would be a loophole in the law's designed fairness.

quote:

I'd love for actual analysis on why.

But I did. Maybe not in three paragraph arguments but I did. Watch.

quote:

That still doesn't make the FACT that I stated untrue that he's oppressing his people, violating their rights, and has no problem killing them.

Cuba, China, Others.

quote:

It also doesn't answer that by invading we'd stop him.

Cuba, China, Others.

quote:

Just because there are lots of murderers doesn't mean that we shouldn't imprison or kill the ones we catch.

Cuba, China, Others. Are they not "caught" (proven) as well?

quote:

Just because the point can be applied to other countries doesn't make the point untrue or answer it as a reason to act.

I believe it does. It's called a double standard. So we pick and choose our worst enemy? How convenient for Bush. Shall we trot out Clinton's parallel speech calling for action against Iraq and it was the dem's calling for war and the rep's were saying wait?

For all that you failed to answer my question. Why Iraq? Why now?

quote:

It's our problem if the UN won't do what needs to be done to protect the interests of it's member nations.

That's almost a good point until one realizes we are not the entire United Nations. Do our interests override the interests of other nations? Russia has something like 8 billion dollars in loans to Iraq that it dowsn't want to go into default because of a US invasion and a regime change. China's economy has grown enough that it is now an oil importer instead of an oil exporter (BBC news). France; I have no idea what France's reason's for opposition is but I think they have interests over there as well.

So then, we have countries who are members of the UN, who have legitimate interests in the region, who are members of the UN, and we are going to defy the Union of which we are part because our interests are more important than theirs?

You just got done saying the purpose of the United Nations was to protect the interests of its member nations.

quote:

So it's in violation of various international treaties. So it's in violation of the cease-fire/peace agreement after the gulf-war. So it places the US and our allies at threat. And so it could cause us harm if we don't rememdy it.

Ok I can agree. But why now? Why war? Why an attack?

quote:

Combine it with all of the other points, it's just a multiplier of the threat of attack, danger, etc.

10% greater? 50% greater? 1x? 4x?

quote:

Also, it's not lame, it's true,

Being true doesn't make it any less lame. Then it becomes an excuse.

quote:

and it's a good piece of partial justification for defense.

Like that is supposed to tip the scales.

quote:

Castro

...isn't Saddam.

True.

quote:

Is more rational than Saddam.
quote:

Ya think?

Isn't in charge of Iraq.

True

quote:

Isn't a threat.

ok. Maybe.

quote:

Again, just because other violations exist doesn't demonstrate a reason why we shouldn't attack Iraq. All of my points support the common premise of attacking Iraq, and you can't make ALL of my points apply to any other country, especially the logic that Saddam could and would easily give WMDs to terrorists.

What is a common premise?

quote:

Right, lame is such a nice...arbitrary term.

No sir, lame is a very specific term most often meaning weak be it applied to an argument or a limb. What is arbitrary is your assertion that he is irrational. He has been contained for 11 years. So why NOW?

quote:

8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers)

This is tougher. I don't think his rewards started as incentives but now that everyone knows about them yes it is now an incentive.

Again I was giving you a point in your argument/trying to give a compliment.

quote:

Ok, now to respond to that load of **it article.

It's only **it because you don't like it. He has good points. It parallelled our argument quite nicely. It was well written.

quote:

It's sad when articles are so shallow that it makes you think a high school drop out wrote them, but here goes.

Like your 8 points?

quote:

1. We just learned about North Korea, AFTER the article was written. The author's point is invalid.

Makes it MORE valid.

quote:

3. We can't do anything about China or NK if we wanted to since China has nuclear weapons and doesn't want us there, which is the same exact reason why we need to take care of Saddam now BEFORE he gets Nuclear weapons and can do whatever he wants (and he has proven in the past he doesn't care about deterrance which keeps China from attacking us)

So we'll deal with the ones we can?

quote:

1. NK was also named in Bush's axis of evil. We aren't being friends with them.

But we won't go after them. We'll use diplomacy. Why diplomacy with North Korea and a war against Iraq?

quote:

quote]Bush offering that Saddam has "violated U.N. sanctions for 11 years" as a reason to attack Iraq just doesn't "wash."

Uhh, "just not washing" isn't an argument.


Sure it is. "Just doesn't wash" means you don't beleive it and you really smell something fishy. You can't quite put your finger on it but something is very definitely wrong. Why Iraq? Why NOW?

quote:

The author still doesn't provide justification for why violations of the UN resolutions is OK,

He doesn't have to. The calling of a double standard is implicit in the statement.

quote:

They are all oppressed, and all need to be freed. Iraq is the best target for right now.

I thought we were done with nation building. Guess not. That is why everyone hates us.

quote:

Ok, even if it is for oil (which it obviously isn't).

(Yes it is.) Whatever you believed before this "situation" is about oil. It may not be OUR interest in THEIR oil but other countries have a vested interest in the region.

quote:

SO WHAT? We're keeping our interests AND solving all of those points I named. Lets find the downside...wait...wait...there ISNT A DOWNSIDE TO IT.

Umm!!!! World opinion?

quote:

We get our oil and we get rid of Saddam who is bad for a large number of reasons.

Yeah this war is not about oil.

quote:

Also, we can't hold the government to such a high standard.

We can't? We do.

quote:

I went through 7 yrs of public education which were notably bad due to disciplinary problems in the classroom. For most of the time, I was able to leave the class whenever I wanted to go to an enrichment classroom where there was actual education. Past that I went to parochial school which is sort of privatized. Yeah, PS doesn't really work.

Twelve of my thirteen years of education were in public school. Yeah it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys that are NOT for a war on Iraq, need to look at a map. Do you see what surrounds Iraq?

Syria, Iran, and a number of other terrorist helping countries.

Saddam HELPS terrorists, there is NO mistaking that, He has told the UN and it's agrrements to go blow smoke.

We take him out for a number of reasons, but the most important being this.

It sends a DIRECT message to Iran, Syria etc, we can and we will take you out next. We now have a HUGE staging area to prepare with, IRAQ, and we are now going to come after you if you don't chill out and get with the program.

Also, by taking out Iraq, we show the young people in IRAN who are dying to overthrow their government, that we are ther and if they overthrow them, they will have direct support from us if they need it, and we will help them build a democracy of their own.

Also, by taking out Saddam, and building a democratic society right next door to all these despots, we prove that it CAN be done and the rest of the despots who support terrorism and the Wahhabi sect of Islam, the CRAZIES, and the hardcore of that religion, will be in DEEP kaka from their people, because the people will realize how tey have been used and fooled.

When Iraq falls, the entire middle east will fall and turn to democracy, and if anyone here actually believes that democracy will not work with the middle east, has not real clue, just look at Turkey, works JUST fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh, new stuff. Cool.

I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't part of a broader plan all along.

I'm against war in general because like people die and junk. But if we do it we need to do it right. If right don't work and we buck the UN we need an almost airtight case. Which I don't think we have yet. All this is really moot anyway since congress passed that resolution. Now we waiting on the UN.

There is room for discussion on both sides. And all that other stuff we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to quote quotes, but i'll respond to Linday's post in some semblence of order.

Ok, since the original debate was around my points, i'll repost em, then proceed to respond to the arguments below that.

quote:

Saddam is:

1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them

2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements

3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons

4. Anti-America

5. A totalitarian dictator

6. Irrational in terms of international actions

7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons

8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers)

Saddam is probably:

1. Developing Nuclear Weapons

2. Supporting terrorism against the United States

I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.

People keep pointing out "Cuba, China, and others" in response to oppressing people, invading we'd stop him, and my analogy about stopping the ones we catch. It seems obvious to me. Just because other people are doing some of the points I listed above. Some may hate us, some may be oppressing their people, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attack the PRIME threat, the one that meets ALL of the above critera, Iraq.

Also, the idea that we can stop Cuba and China are flawed. We can't stop China, the casualty level would be too great, if we could even pull it off. Cuba, on the other hand, isn't the least bit of a threat to US. They are still under economic sanctions because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I personally believe they should be dropped. Castro is the leader of a impoverished country and there's no sign of that changing in the future, and there's no downside to letting him recover.

So again, no other country is AS GREAT OF A THREAT as IRAQ. If they were, it'd meet all of the criteria I named. That also answers the argument: Why Iraq? Why now? We DO pick and choose our worst enemy, because they ARE our worst enemy AND even if they MIGHT tie with other nations for the "worst enemy" spot, look at a map. As Jaguar said, Iraq is in the BEST tactical position to justify an attack. It's not a double standard, it's PRIORITIZING. Under your logic, we'd NEVER attack *ANY* nation because "there are other bad ones". That means we'd ALWAYS allow injustice to happen because "we can't make a choice". That's called nihlism, and that's what caused 9/11 and the Holocaust, among others.

Let me rephrase "interests" to SECURITY of it's member nations. Security > interests since no security = loss of life and interests.

And yes, our interests supercede their interests since w/o us there is no United Nations. We ARE the only superpower, and our interests come first. Especially in regards to OUR security. Our constitution guarntees our government will protect US not every nation in the world. We come first, and in the end, we are doing the RIGHT thing by helping the people of Iraq.

The fact Saddam is anti-America increases the risk of an attack greatly. I can't attach a number to it, but it's common sense. If someone has a gun, you may feel a little afraid of that person, but no reason to feel really threatened. If that person ALSO wants to kill you AND has a gun, your going to be a lot more threatened. Iraq being anti-America just increases the damage that the rest of the justifcations above would cause.

Ok, my "common premise" statement is saying that all of my points put together ONLY APPLY TO IRAQ. Just applying one or two to other countries does not prove that the other countries are better targets. It's just clouding the issue.

Him being irrational is obvious. He attacked Kuwait, got knocked back, and then decided to be defiant. Who, in the right mind, is going to defy the United States? Sure, the way i'm putting it may seem a little bit of bullying, but how stupid can you be? It's like a little twerp is telling the biggest/strongest man alive that he's able to beat him in a fight. The little guy has to be insane. Iraq is insane. (P.S. This is just an analogy to his irrationality, my other points still apply about why we should attack Iraq. The analogy is JUST to prove his irrationality, not to prove we should attack)

No, the North Korea reference makes the article MORE invalid because it proves that the author was making statements WITHOUT any sort of research/evdience to back it up. Sure, we all may be doing the same thing, but if whoever posted it was trying to use his article as "evidence", it's invalid as such since he didn't have the data to begin with.

Yes, we will deal with the threat nations that we can. From your arguments, we have three choices:

1. We only deal with the ones we can.

2. We don't deal with any of them.

3. We try to deal with all of them at the same time and subsequently lose.

#3 is stupid, #2 will cause a lot more harm than good since we'd just be complict in the face of atrocities. So yes, I am advocating that we deal with only the ones we can. What's the problem with that? It's better than the alternatives.

Diplomacy with NK and war with Iraq for the same reasons I listed in my last post. Namely, that a war on NK would cause problems with China, and we don't want to get into ANOTHER war, like Vietnam, that we aren't prepared for and would cause so many casualties. Oh yeah, and a new argument. NK isn't an islamic regime that supports terrorism. AND NK doesn't meet ALL of the critera I listed above.

Fine, the article points out/attempts to point out a double standard. SO WHAT? The author never explains why a double standard is bad, which other countries are MORE of a threat, WHY those other countries are MORE of a threat and WHY attacking Iraq is bad. Even IF he somehow justifies why a double standard is bad, he STILL doesn't point out why an attack on IRaq is objectively bad. Sure, double standards may be bad, but that doesn't say why attacking Iraq is bad/not attacking Iraq is good.

Ok, now you say nation building is bad? The anti war on Iraq philosophies are incoherent. If we EVER want the world to be unified and for us not to be worrying about individual interests, people all over the world must be FREE. You imply that nation building is bad because it causes other countries to hate us. SO WHAT? Are we supposed to be liked but let people be oppressed and killed and have their rights violated? If that continues, we're ALWAYS going to have problems like Iraq, and threats from countries like Iraq. You say (which I don't believe) that if we attack Iraq, it'll cause people to hate us and we'll have more problems. Now, i've already answered this argument in my last post (talking about how there's won't be an increase in attacks/hatred toward us since OPPRESSIVE REGIMES lie right now anyway, it doesn't matter how much more "bad" stuff we do, the anti-US propoganda will stay the same) I don't know how coherent this paragraph is, but what i'm advocating is that we get rid of totalitarian, oppressive regimes and free those people. What exactly is YOUR advocacy? If we can't attack, and diplomacy wont work, what should we do.

Also, before you try to defend diplomacy, read over the last 5 pages (we've already gone over it), and for a quick rehash.

1. Diplomacy has empirically failed with Iraq.

2. There's no reason why Iraq would suddenly start letting diplomacy work.

3. Saddam doesn't care. He's not responsible to public opinion, so if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll just sit there and hope the US backs down.

4. Diplomacy hasn't worked for 11 years.

5. Diplomacy doesn't solve Jaguar's argument about causing other nearby nations to stop being bad.

6. Diplomacy doesn't solve Saddam's oppression of his citizens. Letting that continue is repugnant and allowing murder.

All of the points I named are more important than world opinion. One is what leaders state publically. The other is the amount of body bags that exist. Body bags and dead bodies are a little more important to stop than the leader of France saying "We are appalled by the United States action.". That's when I start laughing and wondering "What the hell is he going to do about it?".

Oh, I do remember from the years that I was in public school that they were a bastion for liberal thought, with all of the "Be nice to everyone" posters on the walls. Thinking back, it makes me want to throw up.

In response to Jag, have you seen what surrounds Iran? At the point we take over Iraq, Iran is pretty much surrounded. They'd be royally screwed if we decided to take them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Lotharr you act as if every person who makes more money than someone else is gaining that money through trickery and exploitation, not the fact that the person making less may be a drug addict and a high school dropout.

In America everyoneÔÇÖs earnings are inflated. The poor really don't have to exist here....we have so much of the worlds wealth that if we supported the less fortunate we could still maintain a super class imbalance....but not the oppressive image.

FACT: max income disproportion is 1,400,000 : 1

FACT: average income disproportion CEO to national family ave is 400:1

FACT: 400:1 equals $14,000,000 to $35,000

The average American family is being f*cked over.

Arnold has made some good shoot em' up flicks but he ain't worth that much.

To hell with the idea of screwing people over being the best system man has to offer.

quote:

Extremism in either side isn't good, there has to be some leg room, and while there are corporations that are filthy, there are 10 more for each of them that are straight.

Facts of life.


American mass media is owned an operated by about five people and it costs over 7.2 mil to run for the senate. 1/5 of the population vote during a house race.....

I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE THERE IS A PROBLEM

You can sit there and believe whatever you want but you can only hide from the truth for so long.

The people are not being represented, yet they are being taxed.....the rest is history.

[ 11-04-2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

In America everyone's earnings are inflated. The poor really don't have to exist here....we have so much of the worlds wealth that if we supported the less fortunate we could still maintain a super class imbalance....but not the oppressive image.

First of all, I have to wonder why bother in the first place? If someone is so incapable as to fail financially, then redistributing wealth to assist them is both wasteful (after all, what benefit comes of spending money to support the dregs of humanity) and counterproductive as it encourages people to leech off of the system and be generally unproductive. Second, attempting to reduce the number of poor would accomplish nothing, poverty is relative, and thus there would still be extremely poor people. Besides, in a historical context even the poorest American is fairly wealthy by the standards of, say, the 15th century.

quote:

FACT: max income disproportion is 1,400,000 : 1

FACT: average income disproportion CEO to national family ave is 400:1

FACT: 400:1 equals $14,000,000 to $35,000

The average American family is being f*cked over.

Arnold has made some good shoot em' up flicks but he ain't worth that much.

To hell with the idea of screwing people over being the best system man has to offer.

Well darling, what's your point? Does is bother you that some people are incredibly more successful then others? Is there something wrong with success being rewarded in a massive way? The average American family is not worth much of anything, and it shows. It isn't a matter of screwing people over; it's a matter of the incapable, incompetent, and generally mediocre people screwing themselves over. It's perfectly natural for those who succeed to have money and power, that's the point of success, and it's also for the best that people who don't succeed have little in the way of money or power and thus are driven to succeed.

quote:

American mass media is owned an operated by about five people and it costs over 7.2 mil to run for the senate. 1/5 of the population vote during a house race.....

I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE THERE IS A PROBLEM

You can sit there and believe whatever you want but you can only hide from the truth for so long.

The people are not being represented, yet they are being taxed.....the rest is history.

So what, people are gong to revolt because they're to lazy to go vote? The lack of representation is a result of public apathy and the realization that no one persons vote makes much difference. People who think like that are not the kind of people who will revolt. Furthermore, the problem is with our sociopolitical culture not with our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragon Lady's right, for the most part. Although I don't agree with not helping the poor at all (i.e. Letting them starve and die because they may have problems with jobs, corporations that fire them, etc.), I do agree that wealth gaps cause people to strive to succeed, as I also agree that poverty IS relative. I bet most people in 3rd world countries would find it great to simply LIVE in our country, let alone get welfare checks, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, NO WHERE in the constitution does it state that the Federal government has the power to tax the rich and give to the poor.

If you wish that to occur, you take that to your particular state.

SSI, Welfare, Medicare, medicaid etc, etc ad nauseum are ALL unconstitutional programs. If you want your state to do it, MORE power to you, but to force me to live under is wrong.

The way it was SUPPOSED to work was this, if you did not like the way a state ran it's government and taxed etc, you could vote with your feet and move to a state that did what you thought was right, but with the Federal government going WAY beyond it's constitutional limits, we no longer have that choice, therefore we have less freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jag. There's no net disadvantage to welfare being a local issue. It's probably an advantage since local governments can deal with problems much more effectively. I'm not sure, but I think the main reason for it being on a national level is smart politicians (smart for themselves, not for the country), decided it'd sound nice and get votes to "give" and "fix all the problems". I'm sure they had good intent at the time, but it's really bad now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darling please do not be put out...someone else will play with you.

Please forgive the ignorant who still believe in people....I know it is dreadfully out of fashion and sooooo provincial... but please, allow the foolish to have their say....

Truly you must ask yourself...where has your pie gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Lotharr:

Darling please do not be put out...someone else will play with you.

Please forgive the ignorant who still believe in people....I know it is dreadfully out of fashion and sooooo provincial... but please, allow the foolish to have their say....

Truly you must ask yourself...where has your pie gone?

No, I believe in people, that's why I think the government "helping" people is stupid because they should be able to help themselves, for the most part, at least in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...