Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
UK Ambassadors's Honest & Bleak Assessment of Iraq
Topic Started: Aug 2 2006, 10:57 PM (616 Views)
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
I have maintained and still maintain that Iraq is in the state of civil war and has been since the attack on the Shiite shrine early this year. The fact that those who are required to play the PR game in such situations are now using the term as a possibility is, to me, nothing more than preparing the American people for a public acknowledgement of what has been reality for a long time.

But as has been pointed out by several posters, the issue is not what I think; the issue is the reality on the ground and what are we to do about it. For close to two years, now, we have been assured by posters here that progress is being made, the situation is improving. They always include the caveat that it "might" get bad, so that they can cover their asses. Unfortunately, their assessment continues to be shown as being wrong as the situation in Iraq deteriorates day by day, week by week, month by month.

When asked what to do about it, all they can say is stay the course, because we just can't leave and besides, they keep assuring us, progress is being made.

We are now at a point, things are so bad, that even the PR side of the Administration can no longfer deny the "possibility" of a civil war. At the very least, this is an admission of just how bad things are.

Now, the right on this Board can spend their time arguing my comments. They can say these articles prove I have been wrong. This is their right to focus their comments on me, but it makes no difference whatsoever whethgr my assessment has been right, wrong, premature or whatever.

What matters is the American troops are beng killed, billions of American dollars being spent, American influence in the region destroyed, 100 Iraqis a day being killed, more and more Iraqis being kidnapped each day, the country's social, political and physical and infastructure continujing to be destroyed.

THIS is the real issue.

I have been very consistent in what I have said for a long time now. I have said this is now an Iraqi problem with a long history and we cannot solve it for them and that it will continue to get worse and we cannot control it. It appears, I have been correct.

I have also said I believe it is best for us to get out of there, let them do what they are going to do to solve the problem and then we reach out to them to help rebuild trheir country because we destroyed it.

Now that we are at a point where the politicians, the diplomats and the military are using the term civil war -- even if only as a potential -- I ask both those of you on the right who have supported this war as well as those of you who may have opposed the war but felt we could not just abandon the Iraqis after what we have done the following:

Do you see a problem here that has to be addressed in a different way than we have been addressing it? Do you see a need to do anything significantly different than what we have been doing ? If so, what do you propose we do?

Or do you continue to argue that all we need to do is to maintain the present course, maybe rearrange where the troops are once in a while and refocus their activites, but we basically stay the course?


Nice rant but the articles you posted do not support your contention that Iraq is currently in a state of civil war. Nor do they suggest that such a situation is inevitable or unavoidable. Much depends on the Iraqis themselves. I seem to have more faith in their ability to overcome their differences than do you.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 01:01 PM
Nice rant but the articles you posted do not support your contention that Iraq is currently in a state of civil war. Nor do they suggest that such a situation is inevitable or unavoidable. Much depends on the Iraqis themselves. I seem to have more faith in their ability to overcome their differences than do you.

Not a rant, nor justification. Just context.


Do you want to answer my questions?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
We are constantly readjusting our tactics as the enemy adjusts theirs. At present they are attempting to destabilize the country by fomenting sectarian violence. Iran has a hand in this as well as the 'insurgency". As I said, much depends on the Iraqis themselves. if they cannot bring order to the streets of Baghdad then we can do nothing more beyond continued support and training of their forces.

It is up to us to keep up pressure on Iran and I am afraid we are not doing that very well. We seemed to have focused on their nuclear weapons program at the expense of concern for their meddling in Iraq and their support of terrorism throughout the region. Iran is the key to everything in the Middle East and Iraq has always been part of the strategy to counter them. Our best hope for Iran is that the leadership will be overthrown in a popular uprising. that is a slender hope but direct military action by us would not be, in my view, a wise course of action.

Most of Iraq is not experiencing the violence taking place in three of 18 provinces. Much of what is taking place in these three is aimed directly at the American people and their will to go on. At some point we will have to leave and whether it is due to an honest assesment that nothing more can be done or whether they just don't need us any more is the difference between success and failure. I just don't think we have reached the point of making either determination.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 01:32 PM
We are constantly readjusting our tactics as the enemy adjusts theirs. At present they are attempting to destabilize the country by fomenting sectarian violence. Iran has a hand in this as well as the 'insurgency". As I said, much depends on the Iraqis themselves. if they cannot bring order to the streets of Baghdad then we can do nothing more beyond continued support and training of their forces.

It is up to us to keep up pressure on Iran and I am afraid we are not doing that very well. We seemed to have focused on their nuclear weapons program at the expense of concern for their meddling in Iraq and their support of terrorism throughout the region. Iran is the key to everything in the Middle East and Iraq has always been part of the strategy to counter them. Our best hope for Iran is that the leadership will be overthrown in a popular uprising. that is a slender hope but direct military action by us would not be, in my view, a wise course of action.

Most of Iraq is not experiencing the violence taking place in three of 18 provinces. Much of what is taking place in these three is aimed directly at the American people and their will to go on. At some point we will have to leave and whether it is due to an honest assesment that nothing more can be done or whether they just don't need us any more is the difference between success and failure. I just don't think we have reached the point of making either determination.

In a war where Sunni Iraqis are killing and kidnapping Shiite Iraqis and vice versa, who is our enemy? Who are we fighting against? Who should the American troops be attacking?



[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Number 6
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 12:32 PM
Most of Iraq is not experiencing the violence taking place in three of 18 provinces. Much of what is taking place in these three is aimed directly at the American people and their will to go on. At some point we will have to leave and whether it is due to an honest assesment that nothing more can be done or whether they just don't need us any more is the difference between success and failure. I just don't think we have reached the point of making either determination.

Today Rumsfeld and the Generals agreed that the violence in Iraq is higher than before. So, according to them, the situation is not improving.

When do we reach the point that you describe?
What are the endpoints?

Don't you feel a tinge of guilt about the philosophy that was presented to Bush: "If you break it, you own it." Well, seems that it's broken, all right. When are we going to make it right?

And how?
Number 6: Who are you?
Number 2: The new Number 2.
Number 6: Who is Number 1?
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Number 6
Aug 3 2006, 03:08 PM

Today Rumsfeld and the Generals agreed that the violence in Iraq is higher than before. So, according to them, the situation is not improving.


You don't understand, obviously, #6. The increased violence and killing is all part of the winning strategy. You just have to trust them.

Besides, I don't think it's been six months yet...


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Rick Zimmer
Aug 3 2006, 05:44 PM
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 01:32 PM
We are constantly readjusting our tactics as the enemy adjusts theirs. At present they are attempting to destabilize the country by fomenting sectarian violence. Iran has a hand in this as well as the 'insurgency". As I said, much depends on the Iraqis themselves. if they cannot bring order to the streets of Baghdad then we can do nothing more beyond continued support and training of their forces.

It is up to us to keep up pressure on Iran and I am afraid we are not doing that very well. We seemed to have focused on their nuclear weapons program at the expense of concern for their meddling in Iraq and their support of terrorism throughout the region. Iran is the key to everything in the Middle East and Iraq has always been part of the strategy to counter them. Our best hope for Iran is that the leadership will be overthrown in a popular uprising. that is a slender hope but direct military action by us would not be, in my view, a wise course of action.

Most of Iraq is not experiencing the violence taking place in three of 18 provinces. Much of what is taking place in these three is aimed directly at the American people and their will to go on. At some point we will have to leave and whether it is due to an honest assesment that nothing more can be done or whether they just don't need us any more is the difference between success and failure. I just don't think we have reached the point of making either determination.

In a war where Sunni Iraqis are killing and kidnapping Shiite Iraqis and vice versa, who is our enemy? Who are we fighting against? Who should the American troops be attacking?

The people killing and kidnapping are the enemy whatever their sect. More precisely, they are the ones who have to be stopped if there will ever be civil order.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Number 6
Aug 3 2006, 06:08 PM
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 12:32 PM
Most of Iraq is not experiencing the violence taking place in three of 18 provinces. Much of what is taking place in these three is aimed directly at the American people and their will to go on. At some point we will have to leave and whether it is due to an honest assesment that nothing more can be done or whether they just don't need us any more is the difference between success and failure. I just don't think we have reached the point of making either determination.

Today Rumsfeld and the Generals agreed that the violence in Iraq is higher than before. So, according to them, the situation is not improving.

When do we reach the point that you describe?
What are the endpoints?

Don't you feel a tinge of guilt about the philosophy that was presented to Bush: "If you break it, you own it." Well, seems that it's broken, all right. When are we going to make it right?

And how?

Yes, the violence is higher than before but none of these same people have made a determination in their mind that the situation is hopeless. We should be careful about using their very considered remarks to put words in their mouths if we want them to continue to be honest about the situation.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
OperaTenor
Aug 3 2006, 06:12 PM
Number 6
Aug 3 2006, 03:08 PM

Today Rumsfeld and the Generals agreed that the violence in Iraq is higher than before. So, according to them, the situation is not improving.


You don't understand, obviously, #6. The increased violence and killing is all part of the winning strategy. You just have to trust them.

Besides, I don't think it's been six months yet...

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. :rolleyes2:
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 07:22 PM
Rick Zimmer
Aug 3 2006, 05:44 PM

In a war where Sunni Iraqis are killing and kidnapping Shiite Iraqis and vice versa, who is our enemy?  Who are we fighting against?  Who should the American troops be attacking?

The people killing and kidnapping are the enemy whatever their sect. More precisely, they are the ones who have to be stopped if there will ever be civil order.

So, are you arguing that our purpose now in Iraq is simply to stop Iraqis from killing and kidnapping each other?

That Iraqis themselves have now become the enemy not because they have anything to do with the United States or are any danger to the US but because they disturb the civil order of their own country?

That our role is now reduced to simply being the security force for another country?

That the reason we are continuing to have Americans killed and millions of American dollars a day spent is because the Iraqis can't keep from killing each other so we have to stop them ourselves?

When did we become the Iraq's parent whose role is to make them behave?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dave Spelvin
Aug 3 2006, 10:12 AM
And that makes two on the right who choose to point out how wrong Rick was rather than address the substance of his post.

There was no substance to address. Rick searches endlessly for articles that support his viewpoint. He isn't interested in truth, he's only interested in defending his bankrupt ideology. It was one man's opinion, and there are many others whose opinions are at odds with this one.

Same old sh!t, different day.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
This is rich. For over a year now Rick has insisted there is a civil war going on in Iraq. Now he posts two separate articles that state clearly that there is no civil war going on, and he now finds himself trying to defend both positions.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
We are America Dammit!

We are becoming their parents because we started this mess and whether or not we like what has happened since, we have an obligation to preserve order.

To leave now would not be American! We have the means and the responsibility to try to let Iraqi children grow up in a relatively safe environment.

It sure Fu__in sucks that we have to pay with daily American blood to see this through but again, it's our mess, and we need to clean it up.


Man, the Middle East is just getting started too. Things will go nucular . Count on it.
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
That Iraqis themselves have now become the enemy not because they have anything to do with the United States or are any danger to the US but because they disturb the civil order of their own country?


Can you think of any groups in the US who disturb the civil order of their own country? Do any of these groups constitute a majority of Americans?

Quote:
 
That our role is now reduced to simply being the security force for another country?


Damn right! Let's go back to blowing things up and breaking sh!t.


Quote:
 
That the reason we are continuing to have Americans killed and millions of American dollars a day spent is because the Iraqis can't keep from killing each other so we have to stop them ourselves?


Certain segments of US society can't keep from killing each other, and you insist that we spend every tax dollar we can helping them out.

Quote:
 
When did we become the Iraq's parent whose role is to make them behave?

Again, the same question could be asked regarding your socialist programs that burden out society here at home.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Rick Zimmer
Aug 4 2006, 12:29 AM
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 07:22 PM
Rick Zimmer
Aug 3 2006, 05:44 PM

In a war where Sunni Iraqis are killing and kidnapping Shiite Iraqis and vice versa, who is our enemy?  Who are we fighting against?  Who should the American troops be attacking?

The people killing and kidnapping are the enemy whatever their sect. More precisely, they are the ones who have to be stopped if there will ever be civil order.

So, are you arguing that our purpose now in Iraq is simply to stop Iraqis from killing and kidnapping each other?

That Iraqis themselves have now become the enemy not because they have anything to do with the United States or are any danger to the US but because they disturb the civil order of their own country?

That our role is now reduced to simply being the security force for another country?

That the reason we are continuing to have Americans killed and millions of American dollars a day spent is because the Iraqis can't keep from killing each other so we have to stop them ourselves?

When did we become the Iraq's parent whose role is to make them behave?

This is why it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion of the issues with you. You have so totally contorted and twisted what I wrote that I recognize nothing here as resembling anything I said. Apparently, whenever you find yourself faced by an argument you cannot counter you twist it all out of recognition and argue against that instead.

You asked :

Quote:
 
In a war where Sunni Iraqis are killing and kidnapping Shiite Iraqis and vice versa, who is our enemy?  Who are we fighting against?  Who should the American troops be attacking?


And I responded:

Quote:
 
The people killing and kidnapping are the enemy whatever their sect. More precisely, they are the ones who have to be stopped if there will ever be civil order.


In other words, we don't have to designate some particular sect as the enemy (the idea that we should is preposterous on its face) we simply need to help the Iraqis enforce the law which does not allow for kidnapping and murder. This is what I said and look what you came back with:

Quote:
 
So, are you arguing that our purpose now in Iraq is simply to stop Iraqis from killing and kidnapping each other? 

That Iraqis themselves have now become the enemy not because they have anything to do with the United States or are any danger to the US but because they disturb the civil order of their own country? 

That our role is now reduced to simply being the security force for another country?

That the reason we are continuing to have Americans killed and millions of American dollars a day spent is because the Iraqis can't keep from killing each other so we have to stop them ourselves?

When did we become the Iraq's parent whose role is to make them behave?


This is why you lost credibility with a lot of people here long ago.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
There is nothing in what I said that does not directly follow from what you said.

Your argument is that the job of American troops now is to enforce Iraqi laws against murder and kidnapping.

What is this other than the job of a police force?

My question is, why should Americans be asked to die or to be maimed, simply because Iraqis cannot or do not want to follow their own laws? Why should Americans be asked to spend hundreds of millions of dollars because there is on-going Iraqi against Iraqi violence?

I have long argued that the issues now confronting the people in Iraq are among the Iraqis themselves and need to be solved by the Iraqis. American troops should not be used as policemen to maintain civil order in countries where the people themselves are undermining it.

Now, you may think I am drawing conclusions which are unwarranted or not replying to what you have said. But you are the one who said -- and you just repoeated it -- that the reason we are staying there is to be the police force for Iraq -- enforce Iraqi laws against Iraqi people. This is a far cry from grandiose purposes used to send our troops there.

Why are we asking American men and women to risk their lives simply because Iraqis do not want to follow the law? If the Iraqi hatred for each other is so great, we cannot stop that. And we should not allow one more American to die because of Iraq's internal religious and cultural bigotry.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Rick Zimmer
Aug 4 2006, 09:04 AM
There is nothing in what I said that does not directly follow from what you said.

Your argument is that the job of American troops now is to enforce Iraqi laws against murder and kidnapping.


No, I said it is the job of American troops to help Iraqis enforce their laws against kidnap and murder. Big difference. Of course, this was in response to your query regarding the current surge in violence by sectarian death squads which are threatening to destabilize the country. That is specifically what I was referencing and in no way implied that Americans should becoome Iraq's police force. That is something you cooked up on your own because you could not address the argument I was actually making.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Aug 4 2006, 07:38 AM
Rick Zimmer
Aug 4 2006, 09:04 AM
There is nothing in what I said that does not directly follow from what you said.

Your argument is that the job of American troops now is to enforce Iraqi laws against murder and kidnapping. 


No, I said it is the job of American troops to help Iraqis enforce their laws against kidnap and murder. Big difference. Of course, this was in response to your query regarding the current surge in violence by sectarian death squads which are threatening to destabilize the country. That is specifically what I was referencing and in no way implied that Americans should becoome Iraq's police force. That is something you cooked up on your own because you could not address the argument I was actually making.

I really don't see the distinction, jbryan.

I said we are now acting as the Iraqi police force. Almost by definition, a police force obviously enforces laws on behalf of the government.

You said we are helping the Iraqis enforce their laws.

I don't really see the difference. They seem to me to be saying the same thing.

Now, if the Iraqi security forces were actually running the show and we were just the back up to them, then I could see some sort of distinction. But the truth is the US troops are the primary security forces. The other truth is that the Iraqi Interior Ministry -- who is supposed to be handling internal security -- is heavily involved in the murder and kidnapping that is going on. Therefore, they cannot be the police force.

I truly do not see your distinction. It still seems to me that you are saying the role of the US troops -- the reason they are being killed and maimed -- is to be the Iraqi police force.

Maybe your thinking is just too nuanced for me to understand.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
But the truth is the US troops are the primary security forces.


No, that's *not* the truth.

Quote:
 
The other truth is that the Iraqi Interior Ministry -- who is supposed to be handling internal security -- is heavily involved in the murder and kidnapping that is going on.


Put up the proof of that. Until you do, I will consider you a liar.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
Now, if the Iraqi security forces were actually running the show and we were just the back up to them, then I could see some sort of distinction.


That is precisely the situation. Reports from Iraq indicate this to be the truth. They are in charge of the situation in Baghdad and and elsewhere and their forces are out front and leading the way. In response to the recent escalation in violence in Baghdad we have had to send in more troops to back them up. However, your mischaracterization of my argument depends on your inversion of this fact so you are not going to acknowledge it.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Aug 4 2006, 08:57 AM
Quote:
 
Now, if the Iraqi security forces were actually running the show and we were just the back up to them, then I could see some sort of distinction.


That is precisely the situation. Reports from Iraq indicate this to be the truth. They are in charge of the situation in Baghdad and and elsewhere and their forces are out front and leading the way. In response to the recent escalation in violence in Baghdad we have had to send in more troops to back them up. However, your mischaracterization of my argument depends on your inversion of this fact so you are not going to acknowledge it.

Then this is why we disagree on this.

You see the Iraqi security forces as being out front, I see them as being "in training" with the US out front.

Yah, I can see where this would lead each of us to a different conclusion.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
You see the Iraqi security forces as being out front, I see them as being "in training" with the US out front.


And the reason for the different viewpoints - JB sees what he sees because he's basing his views on the facts that are abundantly in evidence, and you are basing your views on what you *want* the facts to be.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2