Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Stuxnet WormFollow

#52 Jan 18 2011 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure what you thought you were proving.


He's not proving anything. He's just quoting something with scary words in it and hoping you don't notice that it's just scary words. You know.



Not my words tho are they? Your govts words.

Which was sort of my point.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#53 Jan 18 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Living in a country, where the government does things that are distasteful doesn't make someone an supporter of such actions.

All we can do as Americans is speak out in Protest and hope that we can make those who are elected to repersent us listen and change our foreign policy.


Sadly Humanism has a very bad reputation in America.

BTW, Baltimore Science Fiction Society's New Media Guest of Honor at Balticon45, Philippa Ballantine is from New Zealand and the next book on my must read list is Geist. Sadly she finds living in the US makes it easier to sell books.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#54 Jan 18 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Kavekk wrote:
Nothing good's come from America since potatoes.
yeah, and thousands and thousands of dead soldiers in the world wars.


paulsol wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised that you guys appear to condone official assasinations, but I guess you take your cues from your elected officials, so maybe not so surprising after all. All part of your descent into authoritarianism and the acceptance of total surveillance I suppose....

How do you feel about how the US Govts. have willfully ignored their own rules concerning the distribution of military aid to countries that refuse to sign the NPT?

Quote:
The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act prohibits military assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. The State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, LAW , B’tselem, Al-Haq, and other human rights groups have all confirmed that in attempting to suppress the intifada Israel has employed collective punishments, home demolitions, detention without charges, torture of detainees, extra-judicial killings, and other violations of Palestinian human rights.

Finally, the Proxmire amendment bans military assistance to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, which Israel refuses to do.


http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/faa.pdf

Warm fuzzies I expect...
I agree. We should just sit here passively until extremists blow up all of our buildings. We can let the infidels in Israel get slaughtered, and just hope there is someone there to buy us goats.
#55 Jan 18 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Sorry if you feel the Free Palestine website isn't good enough....

Of course I don't. Why would I?

Quote:
Bottom of page 233 for that section..
Quote:
Sec. 501.638 Statement of Policy.—The Congress of the United States reaffirms the policy of the United States to achieve inter-national peace and security through the United Nations so that armed force shall not be used except for individual or collective self-defense. The Congress hereby finds that the efforts of the United States and other friendly countries to promote peace and security continue to require measures of support based upon the principle of effective self-help and mutual aid. It is the purpose of this part to authorize measures in the common defense against internal and external aggression, including the furnishing of military assistance, upon request, to friendly countries and international organizations. In furnishing such military assistance, it remains the policy of the United States to continue to exert maximum efforts to achieve universal control of weapons of mass destruction and universal regulation and reduction of armaments, including armed forces, under adequate safeguards


I think its basically saying that if a country has a clandestine programme for developing WMD's then military assistance shouldn't be given

That doesn't say what the website claims it says. Most notably, it doesn't prohibit aid to nations who are not signatories to the NNPT.

Searching the PDF for "proliferation" (which also picks up nonproliferation), I see sanctions regarding Cuba and Pakistan realted to their NNPT status which may be lifted at the president's decree. Nothing about Israel though. I'm not searching the whole thing further to make your point for you though so... got a real cite this time?
Quote:
Not my words tho are they? Your govts words.

Which was sort of my point.

My government's words don't say what you and Mr. Free Palestine claim they say.

Which was sort of my point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Jan 18 2011 at 6:21 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
yeah, and thousands and thousands of dead soldiers in the world wars.


Dead soldiers are a good thing?

You sicken me.
#57 Jan 18 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Nothing about Israel though.


Funny that. I wonder why....? Could it possibly have anything to do with how Israel never, ever, ever gets mentioned in official communications when it comes to anything nuclear I wonder?

And yes Elne, I know that "Living in a country, where the government does things that are distasteful doesn't make someone an supporter of such actions" (you should tell that to the people who are supporting US foreign policy so enthusiastically tbh), but thats not why I post here is it? Oddly, the main reason I post here is for the sometimes entertaining banter that goes back and forth, and as a substantial by-product I edumacate myself about stuff. For example, theres no other situation I would find myself in a situation where I would spend some of my day trawling thru Government policy documents from 30 years ago, unless the NZ Health Service was paying me a tidy sum to sit here 'in case' there's an emergency. As such, I thankyou Asylumites! You are awesome!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#58 Jan 18 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
For example, theres no other situation I would find myself in a situation where I would spend some of my day trawling thru Government policy documents from 30 years ago


How I wish I could say the same.
#59 Jan 18 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Nothing about Israel though.
Funny that. I wonder why....? Could it possibly have anything to do with how Israel never, ever, ever gets mentioned in official communications when it comes to anything nuclear I wonder?

So you're saying there isn't actually any law prohibiting aid to Israel? Ok, then.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Jan 18 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Nothing about Israel though.
Funny that. I wonder why....? Could it possibly have anything to do with how Israel never, ever, ever gets mentioned in official communications when it comes to anything nuclear I wonder?

So you're saying there isn't actually any law prohibiting aid to Israel? Ok, then.


No. Thats not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that there is a law in the US that prohibits the sending of military aid to countries that do not come up to the standards set out in the document that I linked to. Those requirements relate to things such as WMD proliferation, genocidal activities, torture, extra-judicial killings and a host of others.

We could argue about whether Israel (or any other country) is guilty of genocidal activities, torture etc. but the fact that Isael does have a nuclear programme, does have nuclear warheads, and has not signed up to the NPT, should make it inelegible for the military aid that it recieves in bucket-loads. And surely that well known situation must have some bearing on the attitudes and opinions of the people who live in a region where the population is continually repressed, criticized and quite often murdered on an industrial scale by the very people who are supplying the money for Israels (illegal) nuclear programme.

For that same country to then come along and get all righteous about how the arab world should behave irrespective of how Israel behaves is hypocrical in the extreme, and maybe, just maybe, have a negative influence on how the western countries involved are percieved by the people who have lived there for generations.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#61 Jan 18 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
But what of the childrenHolocaust! Won't someone please think of the childrenHolocaust!

Maybe we should just let them make Casinos instead, like we do with the Indians.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 8:28pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#62 Jan 18 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
What I'm saying is that there is a law in the US that prohibits the sending of military aid to countries that do not come up to the standards set out in the document that I linked to. Those requirements relate to things such as WMD proliferation, genocidal activities, torture, extra-judicial killings and a host of others.

I've yet to actually see this prohibition. It wasn't what you cited.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jan 18 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I've yet to actually see this prohibition. It wasn't what you cited.


Quote:
PART II 636
Chapter 1—Policy 637
Sec. 501.638 Statement of Policy.—The Congress of the United States reaffirms the policy of the United States to achieve inter-national peace and security through the United Nations so that armed force shall not be used except for individual or collective self-defense. The Congress hereby finds that the efforts of the United States and other friendly countries to promote peace and security continue to require measures of support based upon the principle of effective self-help and mutual aid. It is the purpose of this part to authorize measures in the common defense against internal and external aggression, including the furnishing of military assistance, upon request, to friendly countries and international organizations. In furnishing such military assistance, it remains the policy of the United States to continue to exert maximum efforts to achieve universal control of weapons of mass destruction and universal regulation and reduction of armaments, including armed forces, under adequate safeguards to protect complying countries against violation and invasion.


Quote:
(2) 649 Except under circumstances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of inter-nationally recognized human rights. Security assistance may not be provided to the police, domestic intelligence, or similar law enforcement forces of a country, and licenses may not be issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979 650 for the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to a country, the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights


Quote:
(2) the term ‘‘security assistance’’ means—
(A) assistance under chapter 2 (military assistance) or
chapter 4 (economic support fund) 665 or chapter 5 (military
education and training) or chapter 6 (peacekeeping
664 The words ‘‘causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons,’’ were added by sec. 701(b) of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–533; 94 Stat. 3156).
665 The words ‘‘economic support fund’’ were inserted in lieu of ‘‘security supporting assistance’’ by sec. 10(b)(1) of the International Security Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–384; 92 Stat. 735).
234 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87–195) Sec. 502B
operations) or chapter 8 (antiterrorism assistance) of this part; 666
(B) sales of defense articles or services, extensions of credits (including participations in credits),667 and guaranties of loans under the Arms Export Control Act; or
(C) any license in effect with respect to the export of defense
articles or defense services to or for the armed forces,
police, intelligence, or other internal security forces of a
foreign country under section 38 of the Arms Export Control
Act.


Current military 'aid' from US to Israel is about US$3 billion annually.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#64rdmcandie, Posted: Jan 18 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Paul rules don't apply to ally's. Remember you are discussing the functions of the nation that lives by the phrase.
#65 Jan 18 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, you quoted that.

I guess you don't get this but "In furnishing such military assistance, it remains the policy of the United States to continue to exert maximum efforts to achieve universal control of weapons of mass destruction and universal regulation and reduction of armaments, including armed forces, under adequate safeguards..." is a judgment call. What Congress & the State Department decides are "adequate safeguards", etc.

You made a very specific claim: No military aid for countries who are not signatories to the NNPT. You have yet to actually back this claim up. What you're providing doesn't answer that claim. What you're providing isn't even really a "rule" but "Things we're trying to accomplish". You might disagree with whether or not they're being accomplished but that doesn't make military aid to Israel "illegal" or whatever else.

Likewise, the human rights stuff seems to be largely the decision of the State Department and the president. You don't have to like their decisions but that doesn't make it "illegal" just because you don't like it.

Edit: Actually the "Free Palestine" guy said it was "banned". You just said the US ignores its own rules.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 9:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Jan 18 2011 at 9:30 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
You made a very specific claim: No military aid for countries who are not signatories to the NNPT.


I said
Quote:
the US Govts. have willfully ignored their own rules concerning the distribution of military aid to countries that refuse to sign the NPT?



What I guess I should have said is that the US Govts.

Quote:
have willfully ignored their own rules concerning the distribution of military aid to countries that refuse to sign the NPT (bearing in mind the passage about 'it remains the policy of the United States to continue to exert maximum efforts to achieve universal control of weapons of mass destruction') and/or are guilty of continuous, systematic abuses of human rights


But as this thread was about sabotage of Nuclear centrifuges I thought I'd leave that bit for another time.

Now it doesnt exactly take a giant leap to see that a countries refusal to sign the NNPT and a countries 'systematic abuses of human rights' are exactly what The US Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) and the US Arms Export Control Act (AECA) are all about, as they strictly forbid the government from giving military assistance to any country that violates internationally recognized human rights, and in the same section talk about the US's 'maximum efforts to achieve universal control of weapons of mass destruction' .

Do you think that Israels record on human rights and its absolute opacity in regard to its nuclear programme qualifies it to recieve 3 billion dollars a year, when the FAA and AECA rules are taken into consideration?

And if you do think that they are qualified to recieve so much US taxpayers money (which of course is your right to believe) then are you satisfied with what you are getting in return?

Are a states illegal nuclear activities and its illegal behavior in respect to human right completely seperate in your world?

And if so, why does that not apply to NK, Iran or anywhere else?

Its all about perception. And the perception that is held by the people of the ME (in particular) is that on one hand the US lectures others about human rights and democracy and WMD's, and on the other hand manages to look the other way when weapons that it has developed and payed for are used in flagrant disregard of its own rules and stated desires.

Until that obvious contradiction is dealt with in a realistic manner, then the US's stated aim of being mediator on the 'road to peace' in the ME is lacking any meaningful credibility, and the only possible result of that position is more misery for the people on all sides of the conflict.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#67 Jan 18 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Do you think that Israels record on human rights and its absolute opacity in regard to its nuclear programme...

Opacity to you and yours, perhaps. According to the article, the US is off building working replicas of Iranian nuclear refinement facilities with Israel just to break them with computer viruses. I suspect that the US isn't all that ignorant about Israel's nuclear program.

Quote:
Are a states illegal nuclear activities...

As a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty nor the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, I'm not sure how Israel's nuclear activities would qualify as "illegal".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Jan 18 2011 at 9:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure what you thought you were proving.


He's not proving anything. He's just quoting something with scary words in it and hoping you don't notice that it's just scary words. You know.



Not my words tho are they? Your govts words.


Surely you can see that there's a difference between a broadly worded policy document, and the kind of targeted conclusions made in the first quote you provided? The "words" in the first quote aren't my government's words. They are some one else's opinion of what the US should do based on assumptions held by the person stating the opinion.

Those are kinda not even remotely close to the same thing.

Quote:
Which was sort of my point.


Yup. I got it. I just think you're wrong. Or, more correctly, the source you quoted originally is wrong. They are insisting that the US apply their own questionable standards (and bias) when making policy determinations. Which is kinda nutty if you stop and think about it. It would be like Al-queda insisting that since the US government is in their eyes a terrorist organization that it should bomb itself instead of coming after them. While it makes for amusing rhetoric, no one actually takes that seriously. Well... Almost no one. :)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Jan 18 2011 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I suspect that the US isn't all that ignorant about Israel's nuclear program.



Me neither.

Hence the glaring contradictions that lead to the perceptions of hypocricy and desire for retribution amongst the people who want to blow your stuff (and people) up.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#70 Jan 18 2011 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's nice but it's off the rails from "You're breaking your own rules". Said "rules" make it pretty clear that the decision on who gets what is up to the government based on what the government feels is in its best interests.

Insane stuff, I know. I bet that evil ole US is the only government that tries to act in its best interests. Someone should talk to them about that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Jan 18 2011 at 10:28 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Do you think that Israels record on human rights and its absolute opacity in regard to its nuclear programme...

Opacity to you and yours, perhaps. According to the article, the US is off building working replicas of Iranian nuclear refinement facilities with Israel just to break them with computer viruses. I suspect that the US isn't all that ignorant about Israel's nuclear program.

Quote:
Are a states illegal nuclear activities...

As a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty nor the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, I'm not sure how Israel's nuclear activities would qualify as "illegal".


The US knows about the Israeli program and the capabilities to produce weapons and has since the 70'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/892941.stm

is the most recent "source" from a third party participant. This is a 2000 article so assumed 100 at the time could more likely be 150-200 or so now.

Most people accept that Israel has Bio/Chem/Nuke weapons. But because they are the western worlds proxy in the Mid-East, they get to play by a different set of rules. Call it Appeasement for the Holocaust, call it deliberate provocation directed at the oil rich neighbors. Which ever way you look there would be no real difference, they get special treatment because of where they are in the world.

I guarantee that if say Venezuela began producing nuclear equipment the U.S. and the West in general would be opposed to this. Pretty much run down a list of nations not allied with the U.S. and by Extension NATO and you will see how politics is really played.

I have nothing against jewish people. I do however have something against how Israel treats its neighbors, with support from my country and our allies. They are no better than the Third Reich, and deserve to be invaded and put back in their place, just like **** Germany.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#72 Jan 18 2011 at 11:16 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Pretty much run down a list of nations not allied with the U.S. and by Extension NATO and you will see how politics is really played.

*golfclap*

You're on your way towards growing up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Jan 18 2011 at 11:17 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I bet that evil ole US is the only government that tries to act in its best interests.


But that is surely the debate that should be occuring.

Successive US governments have insisted that they wish to see peace in the ME, but then offer 'complete and unconditional' support of Israels policies, whatever the results of those policies.

Israels aquisition and permanent occupation of land during war? No problem! Here have several billion dollars...

Collective punishment of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, with the use of curfews, travel restrictions, demolition of homes and infrastructure? Have several billion more...

Continuous building of settlements on occupied land, destruction of olive groves that have been farmed for generations, limiting access to medical care for ...well, anyone... actually. Kidnappings, targetted killings, secret detentions without charge, confiscation of relief supplies including medical equipment, drugs, educational supplies (exercise books, pencils, blackboards ffs), etc etc etc. assasinations of targets in third party countries, stealing foreign passports for use in assasinations....Feck the list goes on!

This is what has led to a situation where no-one trusts the US anymore over there. It says one thing and does another, and allows Israel to call the shots. The Arab leaders are completely hopeless (and ******** their dish-dashes as well if they have looked at Tunisia lately). The lack of trust for the US's intentions amongst the arabs has evolved into an outright hatred for the Israelis and their US sponsors. That hatred is what threatens not just any hope for peace in the ME, but fuels the fervour of the Jihadists who now directly threaten US and western interests globally.


The US Government maybe acting in its best interests, because after all theres a lot of money being made and a lot of power being brokered, and a lot of it is at the behest of the massive Jewish lobby in the US. But are the interests of the American people being forwarded? Or the Israelis? No. Not even slightly. The Israelis are living in a state of perpetual readiness for war. The Palestinians are living in the worlds biggest concentration camp, and you, the American tax-payer are footing the bill and living under ever increasing surveillance and terror alerts.

If there is to be a peace of any sort in the region, Israel needs to stand on its own feet, and earn the respect that they undoubtably deserve by learning to co-exist with their neighbours. They cannot kill or imprison everyone who hates them (even with 3 billion dollars a year), so they better start learning to live with them like other countries manage to do all around the world.

A giant first step would be to get rid of the blatantly racist Lieberman, Barak and Netenyahu, and sstart down a road of reconciliation that would inevitably be massivly painfull for all involved. but to continue on in the way they are is leading to a disaster that will engulf the whole region and then the world.

The US tax-payer should not be bankrolling Israels destructive policies.

Its definately not in your best interests. Or mine.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#74 Jan 18 2011 at 11:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Its definately not in your best interests. Or mine.

While I disagree, I don't really care enough to argue about it. I was addressing your notions about the US following it's "rules", not your personal ******** and moaning about the topic in general.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Jan 18 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
If I had access to green arrows Id use them on on that post. It is pretty much what the situation has been for a long long time, and the finer points of siding and money fronting are things that I personally hate. I remember getting into a very volatile debate with a friend over Israel and he always took the stance that they are the ones who arebeing persecuted, hunted and living in fear. It wasn't until he actually visited the region and saw first hand how badly the Israeli's actually act towards their neighbors, and "subjects".

They do live in fear, and are persecuted, mostly because of their own actions. Similarly to why the US is strongly disliked in the region. There was a time when the US was asked to help nations there, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq all requested and received support in the 70's and 80's. However now that doesn't happen, because of the political mind set that the US has in regards to the largest issue in ME peace, Israel.

It is my firm belief that Israel should never have been given the land rights to the region in the first place. Since its inception it has had 9 or so incidents ranging from minor skirmishes to all out wars. It has subjugated the Palestinians to the point of resembling internment camps, and has consistently provoked its neighbors into fighting or in current situations, attempting to acquire weapons with which to defend their homelands.

In my honest opinion of in this day and age the site where Israel sits should be an international religious zone. It should not be controlled by any one nation, and it should not be subject to hostility. It is the birth place of the three major religions in the area, and should be a center of peace, and religious prosperity, akin to the Vatican City which is technically a "nation" unto its own. Giving control of this beacon or religion to one specific religious sect, was asking for trouble. Hell European Countries spent hundreds of years battling ME countries over control before the Muslims who had control, agreed (even after winning the final Crusade) to allow Catholics(Christians) to visit the holy lands, as often as they pleased, without fear of harm.

This peace lasted for Hundreds of years, up until the most recent "control" exchange in the creation of Israel.

The Jews have been driven out before, and they will be driven out again. It is only a matter of time before people say enough is enough.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#76 Jan 19 2011 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
paulsol wrote:
Sounds a lot like Israels nuclear programme to me.

What Israeli nuclear program?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 646 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (646)