Reply With Quote
We never talk about that stuff here.
The following is a copy of the discussion thus far in a thread in the Spurs forum. It has been posted here so that the thread will not be needlessy hijacked. Please enhance this discussion with your own viewpoints.
==
In response to Russ:Bingo. This "news" is as phoney and self-serving as leaks about WMD in Iraq.
But I'd love to see the Spurs keep Washington over Williams. This guy is ripe for the picking, if not by the Spurs then by someone else ala Raja Bell and Haslem.
In response to Russ:Clever. In fact, a good analogy...except when you consider that it is a well known fact that Iraq DID have WMDs when they attempted genocide on all those Kurds.
Oh well....
In response to Obstructed_View:
In response to some_user86:
In response to Darkwaters:
In response to some_user86 (the first comment):
In response to Darkwaters:
In response to Mr. Body:
In response to Obstructed_View:
In response to some_user86
Original thread: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80091
We never talk about that stuff here.
ADDENDUM: Cross posted in the other thread to bring that discussion here:
Last edited by some_user86; 10-26-2007 at 11:44 PM.
Why so vehement on the issue? You're so intent on getting in everyone's face that you fail to see that most people aren't going to waste their time fighting you over this. Because it isn't a conversation. Instead it's one pissy political rant after another; the epitome of one of Piaget's ethnocentric monologues (and yes, I just compared you to a 6 year old).
Your mind is already made up. So why even waste my time? All you will do is spit venom at me and (for all my efforts) my words will fall on deaf ears.
Pass.
No, I am not trying to spit venom at you; I was spitting at Obstructed_View.It's been so long since I have had a chance to fight with someone over a political issue that I came out swinging, in the hopes that I could force a spirited debate. I'm trying to prep myself for 2008
Meh. I am bored and trying to procrastinate from studying for my Neuro exam.
Screw it. I guess no one wants to have a debate.
Plus, like I said, Obstructed_View is the one that seems to get all heated up. I've got beef with people calling me out but then refusing to take a hit after landing a blow.
I must say that I just tagged you for a) starting the issue in the first place and b) failing to move the issue to the political forum.
But, I've got no beef with you.
ROFL
How could I ing miss this? +12 faith points for starting this thread alone. It's funny because most events Clinton to Bush were ed up in almost every possible way, regarding Iraq/Iran and Pakistan.
The political forum was not created to 'keep political views' from being posted in other forums...it was created because it was difficult to have serious, in-dept conversations about political topics in The Club....the WMD issue is one that has been covered repeatedly in this forum....at issue is not whether Iraq had any active WMD material, clearly any WMD material Iraq did possess was obsolete, but whether these weapons, along with remote arial devices that turned out to be not real, mobile weapons labs that turned out to be not real, and a advanced nuclear weapons program which turned out to be drawings on a napkin, cons uted a 'imminent threat' as propagandized by members of the current WH repeaditly before Congress to authorize the war...
Preach it!
But the 9/11 commission report!!!! No thermite possible!!! Plausibility means absolute reality!!! Thermmmmiiiiiite!!!
They're all gonna laugh at you!!!!!!!
I don't think the 911 report mentions termite...but....
I have also discounted the possibility that termite was used as unlikely.....
Well, you leave out the tons of chemical weapons known to exist in 1998 -- as the inspectors were being run out of Iraq -- but, yet, never accounted for by the Hussein regime.
You leave out the know "pesticide" bunkers co-located with munitions depots, containing more pesticide than could be used by 100 moderately sized nations in a millenium but, coincidentally, could make handy-dandy chemical weapons.
You also fail to mention the rockets he was developing that exceeded the distances to which he was restricted by the U.N.
1) Regime change.
2) Freeing an oppressed people.
3) Securing a volatile region of the middle east.
4) Kicking al Qaeda's ass in Iraq...because they were, indeed, there prior to the invasion. (see Musab al Zarqawi)
I'm a member of the civilian public.
No, it's, "...fool me twice...well, uh, you just can't fool me again."
Last edited by Yonivore; 10-27-2007 at 08:18 AM.
WMD. Total, utter smokescreen. The more it's debated, the smokier it gets. A totally sterile, useless, endless debate, an academic distraction, EXACTLY what the dubya suckers want. The Iraq war "framed" as about WMD, terror, etc, is exactly what the oil-grabbers want.
The Iraq war was NOT about ANY of the reasons dubya and his accomplices lied about, has NOTHING to do with US security nor the war on terra.
Iraq (and Iran, with its years-away nukes) is about the oil grab.
===============================
Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
By Jack Miles
TomDispatch.com
Wednesday 24 October 2007
The Sovereignty Showdown in Iraq
The oil game in Iraq may be almost up. On September 29th, like a landlord serving notice, the government of Iraq announced that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force in Iraq - the only legal basis for a continuation of the American occupation - will be the last. That was, it seems, the first shoe to fall. The second may be an announcement terminating the little-noticed, but crucial companion Security Council mandate governing the disposition of Iraq's oil revenues.
By December 31, 2008, according to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the government of Iraq intends to have replaced the existing mandate for a multinational security force with a conventional bilateral security agreement with the United States, an agreement of the sort that Washington has with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and several other countries in the Middle East. The Security Council has always paired the annual renewal of its mandate for the multinational force with the renewal of a second mandate for the management of Iraqi oil revenues. This happens through the "Development Fund for Iraq," a kind of escrow account set up by the occupying powers after the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and recognized in 2003 by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483. The oil game will be up if and when Iraq announces that this mandate, too, will be terminated at a date certain in favor of resource-development agreements that - like the envisioned security agreement - match those of other states in the region.
The game will be up because, as Antonia Juhasz pointed out last March in a New York Times op-ed, "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?": "Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?. have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced."
By contrast, the oil legislation now pending in the Iraqi parliament awards foreign oil companies coveted, long-term, 20-35 year contracts of just the sort that neighboring oil-producers have rejected for decades. It also places the Iraqi oil industry under the control of an appointed body that would include representatives of international oil companies as full voting members.
(
The news that the duly elected government of Iraq is exercising its limited sovereignty to set a date for termination of the American occupation radically undercuts all discussion in Congress or by American presidential candidates of how soon the U.S. occupation of Iraq may "safely" end. Yet if, by the same route, Iraq were to resume full and independent control over the world's third-largest proven oil reserves - 200 to 300 million barrels of light crude worth as much as $30 trillion at today's prices - a politically incorrect question might break rudely out of the Internet universe and into the mainstream media world, into, that is, the open: Has the Iraq war been an oil war from the outset?
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan evidently thought so or so he indicated in a single sentence in his recent memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." When asked, Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander who oversaw three and a half years of the American occupation of Iraq, agreed. "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," he said during a roundtable discussion at Stanford University. These confessions validated the su ions of foreign observers too numerous to count. Veteran security analyst Thomas Powers observed in the New York Review of Books recently: What it was only feared the Russians might do [by invading Afghanistan in the 1980s] the Americans have actually done - they have planted themselves squarely astride the world's largest pool of oil, in a position potentially to control its movement and to coerce all the governments who depend on that oil. Americans naturally do not suspect their own motives but others do. The reaction of the Russians, the Germans, and the French in the months leading up to the war suggests that none of them wished to give Americans the power which [former National Security Adviser Zbigniew] Brzezinski had feared was the goal of the Soviets.
Apologists for the war point out lamely that the United States imports only a small fraction of its oil from Iraq, but what matters, rather obviously, is not Iraq's current exports but its reserves.
Before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, media mogul Rupert Murdoch said, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil." In the twenty-first century's version of the "Great Game" of nineteenth century imperialism, the Bush administration made a colossal gamble that Iraq could become a kind of West Germany or South Korea on the Persian Gulf - a federal republic with a robust, oil-exporting economy, a rising standard of living, and a set of U.S. bases that would guarantee lasting American domination of the most resource-strategic region on the planet. The political half of that gamble has already been lost, but the Bush administration has proven adamantly unwilling to accept the loss of the economic half, the oil half, without a desperate fight. Perhaps the five super-bases that the U.S. has been constructing in Iraq for as many as 20,000 troops each, plus the ill-built super-embassy (the largest on the planet) it has been constructing inside the Green Zone, will suffice to maintain American control over the oil reserves, even in defiance of international law and the officially stated wishes of the Iraqi people - but perhaps not.
Blackwater and the Sovereignty Showdown
In any case, a kind of slow-motion showdown may lie not so far ahead; and, during the past weeks, we may have been given a clue as to how it could unfold. Recall that after the gunning down of at least 17 Iraqis in a Baghdad square, Prime Minister al-Maliki demanded that the State Department dismiss and punish the trigger-happy private security firm, Blackwater USA, which was responsible for the safety of American diplomatic personnel in Iraq. He further demanded that the immunity former occupation head L. Paul Bremer III had granted, in 2004, to all such private security firms be revoked. Startled, the Bush administration briefly grounded its diplomatic operations, then defiantly resumed them - with security still provided by Blackwater. Within days, though, Bush found himself face-to-face in New York with al-Maliki for discussions whose topic National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley revealingly named as "Iraqi sovereignty." Who would blink first?
We're still waiting to see, but in the wake of an Iraqi investigation ended with a demand for $8 million compensation for each of the 17 murdered Baghdadis, Blackwater is reportedly "on its way out" of security responsibility in Iraq, probably by the six-month deadline that al-Maliki has demanded. Despite its disgrace, the well-connected private security company continues to win lucrative State Department security contracts. Blackwater expert Jeremy Scahill told Bill Moyers that losing the Iraq gig would only slightly affect Blackwater's bottom line, but could grievously inconvenience U.S. diplomatic operations in Iraq. In forcing such a crisis on the State Department, the al-Maliki government, whose powerlessness has been an assumption unchallenged from left or right (in or out of Iraq), suddenly looks a good deal stronger.
But oil matters more to Washington than Blackwater does. In September, when the effort to enact U.S.-favored oil legislation - a much-announced "benchmark" of both the White House and Congress - collapsed in Iraq's legislature, the coup de grace seemed to be delivered by a wildcat agreement between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Hunt Oil of Dallas, Texas, headed by Ray L. Hunt, a longtime Bush ally and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This agreement, undertaken against the stated wishes of the central government, provides for the separate development of Kurdistan's oil resources and puts the Kurds in blatant, preemptive violation of the pending legislation. It makes, in fact, such a mockery of that legislation that the prospect of its passage before the Development Fund mandate expires is now vanishingly small.
Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
If the mandate expires and the law is not passed, then what? Then others in Iraq may well seek to follow the Kurdish example and cut comparable deals with whomever they wish. The central government, even if it has lost effective control of the Kurdish north and the Sunni west, could well ratify resource-separatism by contracting for the development of the oil resources in the territory generally remaining under its control. Thus, a new, Iran-allied, oil-rich, nine-province Shiite Iraq could match Kurdistan's deal with one of its own, perhaps even with ready-and-willing China. Will any combination of American military and diplomatic pressure suffice to stop such an untoward outcome?
Clearly, some in Washington still think so. Shortly before the collapse of the Iraqi oil legislation effort, Bush's Commerce Department began quietly advertising for an Arabic-speaking legal advisor to help it in "providing technical assistance to Iraq to create a legal and tax environment conducive to domestic and foreign investment in Iraq's key economic sectors, starting with the mineral resources sector." (Read: starting with oil.) As it happens, the job description overlaps heavily with that of the Development Fund for Iraq's existing International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose responsibility, according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, has been to see to it "that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas from Iraq?. shall be made consistent with prevailing international marketing best practices." Is the Commerce Department already planning for the demise of this board? Like the super-embassy and the super-bases, this bit of Commerce Department staffing-up bespeaks the urge to continue an invasive American presence in Iraq, including Iraq's energy sector, long after December 31, 2008.
But if the occupation is shut down legally after that date and if Iraqi control over Iraqi oil reverts - legally, at least - to something close to pre-war status, that Commerce Department expert may find him or herself playing a less-than-major role in Baghdad. Instead, expect a new role for Iraq's hitherto excluded pool of domestic expertise. The Iraq National Oil Company began operations back in 1961; its legacy includes a skilled work force of trained oil workers. Notable, in fact, among those opposed to the failed oil legislation is the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions. Its members object to provisions in the legislation that permit the hiring of foreign oil workers rather than Iraqis and - in classic Bush Administration fashion - exclude the union from any participation in contract negotiations. The Federation's protests have attracted a letter of support signed by six Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Even with Iraqi expertise duly factored in, oil remains a complicated business, and foreign expertise and capital will remain indispensable in Iraq. Still, for the Shiite-dominated central government, the most trusted foreign supplier of supplementary expertise, manpower, and even capital would seem to be Iran. For now, the United States is paying many of the salaries in Baghdad; but Iran's president, predicting an American withdrawal, has lately declared his readiness to "fill the [regional power] gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation." This invitation to regional collaboration will surely strike the less populous, militarily more vulnerable Saudis as disingenuous in the extreme, but Iran may be hard to stop. As former ambassador Peter Galbraith has explained: "Since 2005, Iraq's Shiite-led government has concluded numerous economic, political, and military agreements with Iran. The most important would link the two countries' strategic oil reserves by building a pipeline from southern Iraq to Iran, while another commits Iran to providing extensive military assistance to the Iraq government." On Oct. 17, the al-Maliki regime flexed its supposedly non-existent muscle yet again by awarding $1.1 billion in contracts to Iran and China to build enormous power plants in Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City and between the two Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
The prospect that, in the endgame for Iraqi oil, the victor might be Shiite Iran (and indirectly Communist China) may help explain recent American calls for the replacement of the devoutly Shiite Prime Minister al-Maliki. Yet, even if American pressure leads to al-Maliki's ouster, the Iraqi parliament cannot be ousted with him. The prime minister's announcement that the next renewal of the multi-force mandate would be the last came, in fact, in response to a binding resolution in parliament that the next renewal, unlike previous ones, may not be at the request of the prime minister alone, but only with the advice and consent of parliament. It has voted once already, in a non-binding resolution, to require the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Fragile as it is, the government of Iraq enjoys international legal recognition, and the underestimated al-Maliki is evidently not without resources when it comes to asserting Iraqi sovereignty over American autonomy within Iraq's borders. In "Blackwatergate," he found a remarkable pressure point, declaring that no new law would be passed in Iraq until the Blackwater matter was resolved to his satisfaction. Nor was al-Maliki necessarily whistling in the dark when he warned his American critics, "We can find friends elsewhere."
The expiration date that Iraq has now set for the operation of a multinational force on its territory coincides almost exactly with the end of the Bush administration. As that date nears, the endgame question may become: How far can the administration go in repudiating its own erstwhile agenda and returning Iraq to its pre-war status - that is, to U.S.-backed Sunni domination of Iraqi domestic politics. That would, of course, result in armed Iraqi hostility to the administration's enemy of enemies in the region, Iran, and a resigned return to collaboration with the Saudi-dominated Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the management of the world oil market, all under a largely offshore U.S. military umbrella. Will the fallback dream now be the one the President's father entertained after Gulf War I - the creation in Baghdad of a kinder, gentler Saddam Hussein with whom, to use the classic phrase, the U.S. can "do business"?
Time will tell, but not too much time. The eerie silence of the Bush administration about oil grows all the more deafening as the price of crude climbs toward $100 a barrel. Blood for oil may never have been a good deal, but so much blood for no oil at all may seem a far worse one.
Jack Miles is senior fellow for religious affairs with the Pacific Council on International Relations and professor of English and religious studies at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning God: A Biography, among other works.
Last edited by boutons_; 10-27-2007 at 09:22 AM.
I don't think termites could eat through steel and concrete. Now maybe thermite could...
Wait...
Are you telling us it was made of wood?
Sorry, just had to take the spelling mistake and joke about it.
What does one say about people who believe that? If it was about oil, there are far better ways to achieve that goal. To think otherwise shows you are not thinking for yourself, but believing the poison of propaganda.
I assume you went to the University of Indoctrination?
Even if it is all about Oil, what is the problem? Without energy
the United States has nothing. Oil is our lifeblood.
But it wasn't about oil. Although oil more than likely played a big
part of it. But not just oil from Iraq, but oil from the ME as a
whole. And it was not just for us, but access by all nations to
that oil in the ME.
But no matter, WMD has been beaten to death in every
conceivable argument, pro and con, that can and was made.
And to date I know of no one who has changed their opinion.
The fact is we are there and now appear to be making some
real progress. So much so that old Ben is trying to get some
back on his side.
Right boutons?
'there are far better ways to achieve that goal."
... which WC doesn't list. Care to embarrass yourself by listing those ways?
As I mentioned before, an actual debate requires listening. You have shown me no evidence that you are going to do anything other than repeat what you hear other people say, so far in lock step with party talking points. I've got no problem with your expressing of opinions, but I asked someone else to take them here and you decided to ride in on your white horse, "Fox News Propoganda" rhetoric at the ready. That prompted the "stupidity" comment.No, I am not trying to spit venom at you; I was spitting at Obstructed_View.
Meh. I am bored and trying to procrastinate from studying for my Neuro exam.
Screw it. I guess no one wants to have a debate.
You are correct in that what you say hardly amounts to more that spitting, and that you did it in a basketball forum speaks volumes about you. I have yet to get remotely "heated up" as you lack any more ability to add "take" to a give-and take than nbadan and boutons. Just post up a picture of the president with a Hitler mustache and be done with it.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt.
Since you completely lack any sense of historical perspective, allow me to educate you on your WMD comments. You said that the sanctions were working. A quick search of "oil for food" will tell you they were not; the people of Iraq were starving to death while Saddam and certain members of the UN were getting rich. There was massive corruption and severe underfunding of humanitarian programs in the country. Saddam routinely violated no-fly zones and never actually followed the terms of the 1991 cease fire, of which the current conflict is a part.
You also said that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq in 2003. Here's a quote from globalsecurity.org:
Estimated Capabilites as of 2002
Iraq rebuilt key chemical weapons facilities since 1991. While they were subject to United Nations scrutiny, some could be converted from industrial and commercial use fairly quickly, allowing Iraq to restart limited production of chemical weapons agents. Iraq had 41 sites with equipment that could be converted to produce chemical weapons agents and their precursors and four facilities that produced chemical munitions until 1991 and could do so again. At least 30 facilities have infrastructure that could be reconfigured for weapons production. Iraq also had the experience and know-how in large-scale production of chemical weapons agents and sufficient qualified personnel with practical experience in research and development on, and the industrial production of, CW agents. It is also thought that Iraq retained a broad array of chemical-weapons-related items such as precursor chemicals, production equipment, filled munitions, and program do entation, as well as requisite technical expertise. UNSCOM estimated that Iraq would have been able to organize the production of chemical agents through reconfiguration or relocation of available dual-use material within several days or weeks.
It's also been widely reported that there were convoys of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria prior to the invasion, POSSIBLY carrying chemical weapons. Blame whoever you'd like for that, but if those chemical weapons exist, they are more valuable NOT being used, as their existence would suddenly validate everything that's being done in Iraq, so the big picture view is that they are as good as destroyed. From a US civilian's standpoint, that's a win.
You also choose not to understand the world that we lived in at the time when there was a smoking hole between Church St and the Westside Highway in New York and the city was littered with dust and photos of missing people. Americans were hurt, scared and angry. There was no way the US was going to do anything other than assume worst-case scenario on any nation's intentions toward us. The term "benefit of the doubt" came down with those buildings.
In case you are too young to remember, there were Anthrax attacks during the same time frame, and the Armed Forces Ins ute of Pathology found a similarity between the Anthrax sent to Tom Daschle's office and Anthrax that had been produced by Iraq.
http://www.afip.org/images/public/nl081002.pdf
Iraq at one time had produced Anthrax. There are reports that the US had supplied Anthrax to Iraq. Whatever you choose to believe, and whoever you choose to blame for any of it, there's a correlation.
We'd been attacked by people that had trained in a country whose government was hostile to us. We'd spent a number of years before that believing that we were safe and that we didn't need to bother with them, other than to launch a cruise missile at them the day the commander in chief testified to a grand jury. That we as a nation made the mental leap to Iraq and decided to learn the lesson that what we didn't know might actually be used against us based upon information everyone in both political parties claimed to know is hardly surprising.
That every terrorist organization is now depleting manpower and resources targeting US soldiers in Iraq rather than targeting civilians in the US kind of makes any operations a success by most ways to measure. As a matter of honor, it would be a shame to pull the troops out and leave those people to fend for themselves, but if they have to do it without Saddam's leadership, military and weapons then it's still worth what it cost.
That there is now a significant US force in two locations in that part of the world is also a good thing. Especially so since the US congress has wrecked our relationship with Turkey over a semantic issue, drying up any ability to secure Turkey's cooperation in anything. There's now a military within quick striking distance of Iran or Syria, and there's a place to be in case the royal family ever loses control in Saudi Arabia. When the UN completely fails to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it will be strategically useful as well. Since the UN completely failed to prevent North Korean nuclear material from ending up in Syria, found before the Israelis bombed a Syrian reactor site a month ago, that just strengthens the argument.
*********
Now my guess is that, after reading the above, you are inclined to give Saddam Hussein more benefit of the doubt than you are willing to give to my cited sources. That imbalance in your judgment is the reason there is no way to have a rational political discussion with you. I hope you surprise me, but I'm not likely to be bothered to return to the political forum to check up on you.
On behalf of your future patients, I wish you good luck on your exam.
Hey boutons, where's my in' oil? How many years has it been? We should at least be getting the UN's share by now, right?
Sorry, this Al Qaeda/Saddam linkage still doesn't fly.
We had Saddam in our custody for a full six months. If there was any real link between him and Al Qaeda, we would have gotten the information directly from him.
"where's my in' oil?"
It's in the ground in Iraq, as reserves, just like it was in Feb 03.
Edgar/Charlie have totally ed up their oil grab.
Doesn't matter to the oilcos, with oil at $90+/barrel and "peak oil" passed, they will be reporting record profits.
Excellent observation.
"POSSIBLY carrying chemical weapons."
Possibly carrying $Bs in cash.
Possibly carrying Sunnis and Baathists and whoever else could afford to pay their way out. Possibly carrying all kinds artworks, valuables, etc, etc.
Total speculation. Doesn't fly in court, doesn't fly for starting a war. And dubya saying "oops, sorry, bad intel" doesn't fly, either.
Even if Saddam had the unproven, unfound WMD, he had no way of delivering them to the US, was NO threat to US. We saw how ty were his SCUDs sent into nearby Israel in the Gulf War. Hit the USA? Hit US bases occupying other Gulf States? GMAFB
You dumb rightwingers are too ing embarrassed to admit that Edgar and Charlie suckered you with all their lies. Keep wandering around in the smoke and mirrors fantasy, suckers.
Last edited by boutons_; 10-28-2007 at 01:30 PM.
So the new line is "they existed but are now more valuable not existing so they won't exist."
This is rich.
We had Saddam in our custody for six months.
If there were any WMDs or links to Al Qaeda, we would have found out from him, right?
Or do you suddenly have doubts about our ability to interrogate and debrief prisoners?
Hey Chump did we have Saddam in our custody. I
This is rich.
We had Saddam in our custody for six months.
If there were any WMDs or links to Al Qaeda, we would have found out from him, right?
Or do you suddenly have doubts about our ability to interrogate and debrief prisoners?
heard that we had him for six months. Is that true?
So what is your point? We should have tortured him?
we don't torture, i mean it's not a form of torture
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions