|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is pulling out of Iraq the answer? |
| yes |
|
20% |
[ 3 ] |
| no |
|
46% |
[ 7 ] |
| in a way (explain) |
|
26% |
[ 4 ] |
| other (explain) |
|
6% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Some Waygug-in: Iraq is not analogous to Vietnam.
Please tell us, though, how you know what you implicitly claim to know about postwar Vietnam and its recovery and reconstruction. |
I never claimed to know anything other than this war was a mistake as was the Vietnam war. I doubt very much that anyone in this present administration will admit as much, but I am sure that in 10 years from now most people will agree on this point. |
Unlikely. As more people from the Vietnam era (finally) leave us and as younger generations emerge, we will see less and less comparing everything bad in U.S. foreign affairs to that conflict. (Yes, they are trapped in a time warp, and yes, they force us to accompany them in this time warp.)
Iraq is not analogous to Vietnam. (When you offer a tantalizing "hint" and pose an obviously rhetorical question, you suggest that you know much more but are choosing not to reveal it, thus my erroneous assumption that you must have known what you were talking about.)
And withdrawing from Iraq, especially now, will likely produce the results Cheney predicted: they will follow us out and come to us again.
For this and other reasons, then, we need to stay, for at least as long as Kuros suggests above. We are there. It is dangerous to leave now.
Most of the Senate seems to agree...
| Quote: |
The Senate rejects two Democrat-sponsored amendments that would begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Sen. John Kerry's proposal that all troops be pulled out by July 1, 2007, received only 13 votes. But a non-binding measure by Sen. Carl Levin that also called for a pullout -- without setting a firm date -- got 39 votes.
Despite widespread doubts that the measures would pass, the debate in the Senate was the most ferocious since the invasion of Baghdad three years ago. Since that time, 2,500 Americans have died in Iraq. |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504524 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| [ I take it you don't disagree that the Bush administration premise, at least, is to build essentially permanent bases and keep U.S. forces there for the long-term. |
Depends on what you mean by the long-term. I stated above that I think the troops will be out of there by 2010 or somewhere in that vicinity. Strategic considerations notwithstanding, a solid majority of American citizens (voters) are now against the war, and as deaths mount, it will only get worse.
That said, I am against a quick pullout since that will only lead to civil war and a likely takeover by a government hostile to Western interests. We don't need a second Iran. I agree with what Mr. Gopher said here "they will follow us out and come to us again."
Right now their attention is focused on Iraq, let's keep it there for as long as possible. Already ordinary Iraqis are turning against the insurgents for their bloody methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe the same sort of thinking was used to keep the US in Vietnam as well.............
The hint was this........ leave the Iraqis to sort it out as when the US left Vietnam, the Vienamese were left to sort it out.
I am not suggesting this will bring peace to Iraq overnight, but what is going on now is just delaying the inevitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheFonz
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: North Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
I believe the same sort of thinking was used to keep the US in Vietnam as well.............
The hint was this........ leave the Iraqis to sort it out as when the US left Vietnam, the Vienamese were left to sort it out.
I am not suggesting this will bring peace to Iraq overnight, but what is going on now is just delaying the inevitable. |
I disagree. One main difference between Vietnam and Iraq is OIL. Since the U.S. is so dependent on oil withdrawing and letting the Iraqis sort it out isn't an option.
If the U.S. did a massive exodus it would be devastating for the rebuilding process, and Iraq might end up with someone worse than Saddam. Finish the job. That is what pissed off so many veterans about Vietnam. All those lives were wasted, unless of course you see it as a U.S. stance against communism. This war wasn't about Saddam or the war on terror. It was about securing the U.S. oil interests. The U.S. needs to slowly relinquish control back to the Iraqis. Bush was arrogant when he said the war is over. It will take another decade at least.
Why were most of the other countries pissed off that we invaded Iraq in the first place?
Because they had a vested interest in the old Iraq and didn't want the U.S. to rock the boat. France had contracts for oil as did other countries. They don't care about Iraqis nor do Americans. Simply put its all about oil and power.
This problem should of been addressed in the 70s. Corporate Greed is the reason we haven't developed cost effecient oil alternatives. Had it been addressed do you think we would be in Iraq?
Last edited by TheFonz on Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| ...when the US left Vietnam, the Vienamese [sic] were left to sort it out. |
How exactly did the Vietnamese "sort it out" after the U.S. withdrew? Can you sketch out their reconstruction efforts and any special challenges they overcame or successes or failures, too, for that matter? Also, were there really no other powers involved (as you seem to be suggesting)?
And was Vietnam's place in the world economy, its domestic political economy, and sociocultural breakdown really so similar to Iraq's?
At the time, U.S. policymakers were concerned that a withdrawal from Vietnam would threaten all of Southeast Asia, where states such as Thailand and Indonesia would be forced to reorient their foreign policy in favor of China and Soviet Russia in what was then a dangerous, bipolar world -- if they were not to be overthrown by local Communists themselves. Yet, in the aftermath of 9/11, U.S. policymakers today, such as Cheney, are voicing concern that a withdrawal from Iraq would threaten the United States with additional 9/11-style attacks -- something we have already seen repeated in Madrid and London, for example.
Again, you seem to know a great deal about what happened in Vietnam and how this relates to Iraqi affairs today, or at least, that is what you are intimating here. So perhaps you might enlighten us with something more than simple assertion.
And, just to clarify, I do not doubt that there are points of comparison -- there are always points of comparison. I just say that Vietnam and Iraq are not analogous. One cannot therefore make predictions for one using the other as the baseline.
I think that you see only a problematic war on foreign soil involving an evil empire and an insurgency. And if that was all that was required to make a situation "another Vietnam," then there would be, perhaps, hundreds of "Vietnams" in world history, including, for example, Napoleon in Spain, among others. And in that case the political meaning of "Vietnam" would obscure and distort our understanding of what actually happened on the ground -- and Napoleon's reasons for invading Spain as well as the guerrillas' reasons for opposing him (and Britain's reasons for diverting its Latin American expeditionary force in order to back the Spanish guerrillas). In any case, this is what your Vietnam comparison does to our understanding of what is going on in Iraq today... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree Iraq and Vietnam are not similiar BUT there are analogies...
In particular the biggest analogy is
| Quote: |
| At the time, U.S. policymakers were concerned that a withdrawal from Vietnam would threaten all of Southeast Asia, where states such as Thailand and Indonesia would be forced to reorient their foreign policy in favor of China and Soviet Russia in what was then a dangerous, bipolar world -- if they were not to be overthrown by local Communists themselves. Yet, in the aftermath of 9/11, U.S. policymakers today, such as Cheney, are voicing concern that a withdrawal from Iraq would threaten the United States with additional 9/11-style attacks -- something we have already seen repeated in Madrid and London, for example. |
But I disagree and your assertion is completely wrong!!! NOTHING happened after the U.S. pulled out in terms of Communism spreading. If anything, democracy and capitalism was fortified in other regions. Also, we see directly after, China invading Vietnam (hahahahahaha for communist spreading!!), Russia/China border conflict. This theory of "fighting communism and all the world will be overrun from commies if we show weakness", never happened and was a big RUSE. Another lie of the leadership at the time (like Nixon being elected to decrease troops -- yet , more were killed under his term than ever -- could happen with Bush).
So you are again disingenious, putting in that paragraph to try and support the Cheney and administration assertions that terrorism will spread everywhere!!! Likely won't, as is , it is not "everywhere" but something to be contained and fight against locally , not halfway around the world. But in no way is a justification for staying in Iraq, just like the ruse, the "No to communism" of Vietnam. Vietnam was a nationalistic war, just like Iraq, -- not as the politicians state, about ideology/fear.
I hate it when leadership/politicians/the military make us suffer for some future good. This has been their modus operandi for ages. Communism was about, suffer now for the great utopia. Build it, work hard, don't think about freedom!!! Republicans ask America to suffer, follow us, kill in Iraq because one day it will bring freedom and a turkey on every plate, a car in every driveway -- one day!! No better than preachers going on about heaven or paradise!!! Poppycock, all this "stay in Iraq, we got to continue the violence or the whole world will burn with terror!!!". UGGGGGHHH.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the Vietnam conflict, the U.S. was mostly concerned with the U.S. position in East Asia, especially Southeast Asia vis-a-vis Soviet Russia, in the larger context of the Cold War.
In the Iraqi affair, U.S. motives have to do with actual U.S. security -- that is, inside the continental United States -- in the context of radical and militant Islam, 9/11 and its aftermath, and a regional dictator with whom we had an older score to settle.
My point was intended to show how even U.S. motives contrast when comparing the two wars. It was not intended to argue or attack the validity of said motives. Neither was it intended to provoke yet another screaming diatribe...
In any case, politically-motivated withdrawal is still not the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what is the answer....in your opinion?
I never claimed to have any inside information on what happened in Vietnam after the US pullout.
It's just that once the US left, no one could blame America for what went on, at least not directly.
By the way, what's your take on this book?
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/250
And no, I haven't read it. I am just wondering what you think about it.
Do you think it's worth reading?
If you want to know what is really going on in the Iraq "insurgency" and among the Iraqi people -- vis a vis the U.S. occupation -- read this extraordinary book by journalist Nir Rosen.
We interviewed Rosen recently (and we will be posting it shortly), and were first of all amazed that he survived his journalistic forays into the underside of Iraq, when so many other reporters have been killed or kidnapped.
But Rosen is young, resourceful, ambitious and speaks Arabic. He knew how to gain the trust of all sides to the conflicts among Iraqi factions -- and to the conflict against our unfortunate U.S. forces, placed in harm's way by a stubborn, doltish, failed president (working under the direction of a bitter, non-reality-based vice-president).
Last edited by some waygug-in on Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Here's a hint:
Who cleaned up when the US pulled out of Vietnam? |
Who cleaned up after Viet nam? Didnt need it. Because they got the superior and utopian communist totalitarian system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| ...the conflict against our unfortunate U.S. forces, placed in harm's way by a stubborn, doltish, failed president (working under the direction of a bitter, non-reality-based vice-president). |
Looks like a refreshingly dispassionate, professional account that echews the partisan arguing of today in favor of creating a lasting and valuable history of the war...
Thanks for the reference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rosen wrote a great article about Fallujah for Harpers Magazine. Real bird's eye view. Analytic but at the same time with that ageless question infront of your face , "why are so many needlessly dying???".
I'll read the book. Below is Rosen's own case for why cutting and running is NOT a last case scenario for the U.S. but rather -- the only way for any good to come about.....he deals with all the bogeymen a lot better than I can...
DD
| Quote: |
If America Left Iraq
By Nir Rosen
The Atlantic Monthly
December 2005 Issue
The case for cutting and running.
At some point - whether sooner or later - US troops will leave Iraq. I have spent much of the occupation reporting from Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Fallujah, and elsewhere in the country, and I can tell you that a growing majority of Iraqis would like it to be sooner. As the occupation wears on, more and more Iraqis chafe at its failure to provide stability or even electricity, and they have grown to hate the explosions, gunfire, and constant war, and also the daily annoyances: having to wait hours in traffic because the Americans have closed off half the city; having to sit in that traffic behind a US military vehicle pointing its weapons at them; having to endure constant searches and arrests. Before the January 30 elections this year the Association of Muslim Scholars - Iraq's most important Sunni Arab body, and one closely tied to the indigenous majority of the insurgency - called for a commitment to a timely US withdrawal as a condition for its participation in the vote. (In exchange the association promised to rein in the resistance.) It's not just Sunnis who have demanded a withdrawal: the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is immensely popular among the young and the poor, has made a similar demand. So has the mainstream leader of the Shiites' Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who made his first call for US withdrawal as early as April 23, 2003.
If the people the US military is ostensibly protecting want it to go, why do the soldiers stay? The most common answer is that it would be irresponsible for the United States to depart before some measure of peace has been assured. The American presence, this argument goes, is the only thing keeping Iraq from an all-out civil war that could take millions of lives and would profoundly destabilize the region. But is that really the case? Let's consider the key questions surrounding the prospect of an imminent American withdrawal.
Would the withdrawal of US troops ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites?
No. That civil war is already under way - in large part because of the American presence. The longer the United States stays, the more it fuels Sunni hostility toward Shiite "collaborators." Were America not in Iraq, Sunni leaders could negotiate and participate without fear that they themselves would be branded traitors and collaborators by their constituents. Sunni leaders have said this in official public statements; leaders of the resistance have told me the same thing in private. The Iraqi government, which is currently dominated by Shiites, would lose its quisling stigma. Iraq's security forces, also primarily Shiite, would no longer be working on behalf of foreign infidels against fellow Iraqis, but would be able to function independently and recruit Sunnis to a truly national force. The mere announcement of an intended US withdrawal would allow Sunnis to come to the table and participate in defining the new Iraq.
But if American troops aren't in Baghdad, what's to stop the Sunnis from launching an assault and seizing control of the city?
Sunni forces could not mount such an assault. The preponderance of power now lies with the majority Shiites and the Kurds, and the Sunnis know this. Sunni fighters wield only small arms and explosives, not Saddam's tanks and helicopters, and are very weak compared with the cohesive, better armed, and numerically superior Shiite and Kurdish militias. Most important, Iraqi nationalism - not intramural rivalry - is the chief motivator for both Shiites and Sunnis. Most insurgency groups view themselves as waging a muqawama - a resistance - rather than a jihad. This is evident in their names and in their propaganda. For instance, the units commanded by the Association of Muslim Scholars are named after the 1920 revolt against the British. Others have names such as Iraqi Islamic Army and Flame of Iraq. They display the Iraqi flag rather than a flag of jihad. Insurgent attacks are meant primarily to punish those who have collaborated with the Americans and to deter future collaboration.
Wouldn't a US Withdrawal Embolden the Insurgency?
No. If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left? When I asked Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics who support them why they were fighting, they all gave me the same one-word answer: intiqaam - revenge. Revenge for the destruction of their homes, for the shame they felt when Americans forced them to the ground and stepped on them, for the killing of their friends and relatives by US soldiers either in combat or during raids.
But what about the foreign jihadi element of the resistance? Wouldn't it be empowered by a US withdrawal?
The foreign jihadi element - commanded by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - is numerically insignificant; the bulk of the resistance has no connection to al-Qaeda or its offshoots. (Zarqawi and his followers have benefited greatly from US propaganda blaming him for all attacks in Iraq, because he is now seen by Arabs around the world as more powerful than he is; we have been his best recruiting tool.) It is true that the Sunni resistance welcomed the foreign fighters (and to some extent still do), because they were far more willing to die than indigenous Iraqis were. But what Zarqawi wants fundamentally conflicts with what Iraqi Sunnis want: Zarqawi seeks re-establishment of the Muslim caliphate and a Manichean confrontation with infidels around the world, to last until Judgment Day; the mainstream Iraqi resistance just wants the Americans out. If US forces were to leave, the foreigners in Zarqawi's movement would find little support - and perhaps significant animosity - among Iraqi Sunnis, who want wealth and power, not jihad until death. They have already lost much of their support: many Iraqis have begun turning on them. In the heavily Shia Sadr City foreign jihadis had burning tires placed around their necks. The foreigners have not managed to establish themselves decisively in any large cities. Even at the height of their power in Fallujah they could control only one neighborhood, the Julan, and they were hated by the city's resistance council. Today foreign fighters hide in small villages and are used opportunistically by the nationalist resistance.
When the Americans depart and Sunnis join the Iraqi government, some of the foreign jihadis in Iraq may try to continue the struggle - but they will have committed enemies in both Baghdad and the Shiite south, and the entire Sunni triangle will be against them. They will have nowhere to hide. Nor can they merely take their battle to the West. The jihadis need a failed state like Iraq in which to operate. When they leave Iraq, they will be hounded by Arab and Western security agencies.
What about the Kurds? Won't They Secede If the United States Leaves?
Yes, but that's going to happen anyway. All Iraqi Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. They do not feel Iraqi. They've effectively had more than a decade of autonomy, thanks to the UN-imposed no-fly zone; they want nothing to do with the chaos that is Iraq. Kurdish independence is inevitable - and positive. (Few peoples on earth deserve a state more than the Kurds.) For the moment the Kurdish government in the north is officially participating in the federalist plan - but the Kurds are preparing for secession. They have their own troops, the peshmerga, thought to contain 50,000 to 100,000 fighters. They essentially control the oil city of Kirkuk. They also happen to be the most America-loving people I have ever met; their leaders openly seek to become, like Israel, a proxy for American interests. If what the United States wants is long-term bases in the region, the Kurds are its partners.
Would Turkey Invade in Response to a Kurdish Secession?
For the moment Turkey is more concerned with EU membership than with Iraq's Kurds - who in any event have expressed no ambitions to expand into Turkey. Iraq's Kurds speak a dialect different from Turkey's, and, in fact, have a history of animosity toward Turkish Kurds. Besides, Turkey, as a member of NATO, would be reluctant to attack in defiance of the United States. Turkey would be satisfied with guarantees that it would have continued access to Kurdish oil and trade and that Iraqi Kurds would not incite rebellion in Turkey.
Would Iran Effectively Take Over Iraq?
No. Iraqis are fiercely nationalist - even the country's Shiites resent Iranian meddling. (It is true that some Iraqi Shiites view Iran as an ally, because many of their leaders found safe haven there when exiled by Saddam - but thousands of other Iraqi Shiites experienced years of misery as prisoners of war in Iran.) Even in southeastern towns near the border I encountered only hostility toward Iran.
What about the goal of creating a secular democracy in Iraq that respects the rights of women and non-Muslims?
Give it up. It's not going to happen. Apart from the Kurds, who revel in their secularism, Iraqis overwhelmingly seek a Muslim state. Although Iraq may have been officially secular during the 1970s and 1980s, Saddam encouraged Islamism during the 1990s, and the difficulties of the past decades have strengthened the resurgence of Islam. In the absence of any other social institutions, the mosques and the clergy assumed the dominant role in Iraq following the invasion. Even Baathist resistance leaders told me they have returned to Islam to atone for their sins under Saddam. Most Shiites, too, follow one cleric or another. Ayatollah al-Sistani - supposedly a moderate - wants Islam to be the source of law. The invasion of Iraq has led to a theocracy, which can only grow more hostile to America as long as US soldiers are present. Does Iraqi history offer any lessons?
The British occupation of Iraq, in the first half of the twentieth century, may be instructive. The British faced several uprisings and coups. The Iraqi government, then as now, was unable to suppress the rebels on its own and relied on the occupying military. In 1958, when the government the British helped install finally fell, those who had collaborated with them could find no popular support; some, including the former prime minister Nuri Said, were murdered and mutilated. Said had once been a respected figure, but he became tainted by his collaboration with the British. That year, when revolutionary officers overthrew the government, Said disguised himself as a woman and tried to escape. He was discovered, shot in the head, and buried. The next day a mob dug up his corpse and dragged it through the street - an act that would be repeated so often in Iraq that it earned its own word: sahil. With the British-sponsored government gone, both Sunni and Shiite Arabs embraced the Iraqi identity. The Kurds still resent the British perfidy that made them part of Iraq.
What Can the United States Do to Repair Iraq?
There is no panacea. Iraq is a destroyed and fissiparous country. Iranians and Saudis I've spoken to worry that it might be impossible to keep Iraq from disintegrating. But they agree that the best hope of avoiding this scenario is if the United States leaves; perhaps then Iraqi nationalism will keep at least the Arabs united. The sooner America withdraws and allows Iraqis to assume control of their own country, the better the chances that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari won't face sahil. It may be decades before Iraq recovers from the current maelstrom. By then its borders may be different, its vaunted secularism a distant relic. But a continued US occupation can only get in the way. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The majority of US manoeuvre brigades are in Iraq, recovering for Iraq, or preparing for Iraq. Is that really such a bad thing? Iraq will be a mess regardless of who's in charge. I'd probably feel differently if I were an American, but from an outsider's point of view is there much point in putting pressure on the US to withdraw troops that may just as well be used to mess up some other place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Looks like a refreshingly dispassionate, professional account that echews [sic] the partisan arguing of today in favor of creating a lasting and valuable history of the war... |
Globally speaking: Gopher has made 3-4 posts regarding the coming election, all of which are focussed on one party. What does that say about partisanship.
Speaking on Iraq: There is no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Now, apparently, there is.
Comparing Iraq to Vietnam: It's a guerilla war at this point. Absent a "domino theory", the two are not analogous. Then again, why were we concerned about "domino theory" in Vietnnam? Because it was perceived as a threat to the US. We certainly would not have gone into Vietnam if the case couldn't be made for America being threatened. Such a threat is/was a leading rationale. Hence another parallel.
Rationally speaking: We will always live under a threat. There will never be a sure-as-shit safe America. That is a delusion.
Absent of a domino theory, we are now "promoting democracy". This is a folly as long as we also violate our constitution in doing so.
Do we withdraw from Iraq?
That's a tough question but not really. We won't be withdrawing from Iraq as long as we're leaving our infrastructure there protected with ak-47's. Sure, we're gonna reduce troops, but there's NO WAY Iraq will stand on its own two feet with VIETNAM-ERA weaponry to support itself.
We spend $80 billion at a throw and (at least publicly) account for little.
As long as that pork-barrel feedbag hangs there unchallenged, we'll be there for a long long time.
Public Line: We're gonna stay as long as necessary and not any longer.
Apparently, that's sufficient for some Americans.
But DON'T compare Iraq to Vietnem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
