View Poll Results: Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

Voters
156. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    119 76.28%
  • Yes

    37 23.72%
Page 23 of 33 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 690 of 983

Thread: Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

  1. #661
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Why can't any of you answer my question?

    Why is a soldier's life worth less than a civilian's life?

    Why is a child's life worth more than a soldier's life?

    How much longer am I going to have to sit here and read a bunch of angry bull$#@! before I find someone willing to offer a reasonable answer?

    So far, the best anyone can muster is "WW II was not a moral war", which is laughable, and crumbles under the simplest of counters. WW II was just, and a war that had to be fought.

    So I'm still waiting for the explanation.

    I am sure the next reply will not have an explanation, but will have more insults and insinuations of my ignorance and immorality though. I know I can count on you guys for that. Unless of course, the next poster wants to troll hard, then it will be a bunch of strawmen about me wanting to kill people and establish a worldwide American empire.


    Still no answer?

    Just more gnashing of teeth and anger?

    Anybody dare to try and answer the question?
    If you need people to explain to you why killing a child or an innocent civilian is morally worse then killing a soldier then there is nothing anyone can say here to change your mind. You should maybe consider working for Lindsey Graham or John McCain, I bet they could use more people defending their war mongering ways. War is peace right?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    No, I'd be responsible for ending the war that killed millions of truly innocent people, (civilian and soldier) because of the Japanese.
    And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!

  4. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!

    can't really blame him. History classes in school were basically brainwashing tactic strategies, especially if the teacher was good looking and had a good personality. Yes, we had young sheep back in my day...except me. Might explain my loner status back then.

    I wrote an essay on that very subject in High School. My paper was given an A plus, but the School District kept it. This was in 1968.
    Last edited by JK/SEA; 08-08-2013 at 10:14 AM.

  5. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    If you need people to explain to you why killing a child or an innocent civilian is morally worse then killing a soldier then there is nothing anyone can say here to change your mind. You should maybe consider working for Lindsey Graham or John McCain, I bet they could use more people defending their war mongering ways. War is peace right?
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!
    I could not have said it better myself, if I wanted aggressors utilizing human shields to enjoy free reign.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #665
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!
    The contemporary Middle East is in no way comparable to the days leading up Hiroshima. There is no untenable life or death scenario playing out there.

  8. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Actually, the same revisionism & distortion comes from the absolute peace side (take the purported deaths at Dresden as well that were inflated). Changing and altering facts to justify their position of pacificism at all costs. Secondly, we have letters and government documents authentic to that critical time period documenting the arduous task at hand that faced the U.S. military command as well as the POTUS leading up to Operation Downfall and Operation Olympic.

    you voted YES and NO in the poll?....

    wtf?

  9. #667
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by JK/SEA View Post
    you voted YES and NO in the poll?....

    wtf?
    I voted yes, but would have liked to have a better worded question.

  10. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    The contemporary Middle East is in no way comparable to the days leading up Hiroshima. There is no untenable life or death scenario playing out there.
    The point is still the same. The argument that bombing people will save lives. Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity. You can go back as far as you want but if you look back in time, kings, queens, presidents, governments have always used the excuse of "saving lives" to go to war. They never say, "hey we are about to go to war to take land or make money for the weapon makers." No, they tell their people that they have to go to war because their lives are being threatened and going to war is the only way to achieve peace.

    The same exact line some of you are trying to feed us now. They did it to SAVE LIVES.

    Oh wait let me guess, this time it's different.
    Last edited by twomp; 08-08-2013 at 10:35 AM.

  11. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    I voted yes, but would have liked to have a better worded question.

    uhh...you voted NO and yes....

    you seem confused, but perhaps you can be the one that represents the typical voter. lol.

  12. #670
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by JK/SEA View Post
    uhh...you voted NO and yes....

    you seem confused, but perhaps you can be the one that represents the typical voter. lol.
    There is another with a similar tag as mine.

  13. #671
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    There is another with a similar tag as mine.
    how is that possible? they're identical.

    admin?

  14. #672
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    The point is still the same. The argument that bombing people will save lives. Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity. You can go back as far as you want but if you look back in time, kings, queens, presidents, governments have always used the excuse of "saving lives" to go to war. They never say, "hey we are about to go to war to take land or make money for the weapon makers." No, they tell their people that they have to go to war because their lives are being threatened and going to war is the only way to achieve peace.

    The same exact line some of you are trying to feed us now. They did it to SAVE LIVES.

    Oh wait let me guess, this time it's different.
    Well, they are being deceitful to advance their goals. In 90% of the cases, aggressive bombing campaigns do not save lives. Many modern-day proponents dress up their agenda in the noble cloak of WW2 conflating those unique worldwide threats to relatively impotent nations like Iran or Iraq. Listen to Hannity. Everyday is June 6th, 1944 to him. We need to fight evil!!!! Hogwash I say. The facts on the ground prove otherwise.
    Last edited by AuH20; 08-08-2013 at 11:10 AM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #673
    @UWDude-

    At the end of the day, I'm just curious, what made Stalin any better than Hitler, in your mind?

    I'm not sure if Eduardo was serious about joining the Germans, but he makes an interesting point, namely, that the Stalinists WERE evil. Mind you, I'd claim FDR was evil too, although there I can see a couple orders of magnitude difference between him and Adolf. But Hitler and Stalin were pretty similar, actually Stalin killed even more people.

    I have to question the premise that Adolf Hitler's intent was to take over the entire world. And I seriously have to question the premise that, even if he wanted to do that, he could have.

    I'd suggest that the fact that Hitler was willing to send Jews to the US is evidence that his intent was not to take over the entire world. Otherwise, why would he deport any of them? Why not just kill them all immediately? I think his goal was more likely to create a "Racially pure" Europe than to conquer the whole world.

    I suppose you could argue that the murder of millions is in and of itself a reason to get involved... but once you concede that, it becomes a purely mathematical game, how many people have to be murdered before you get involved?

    My take is this... preemptive wars are bad. Yes, we were attacked in 1941, but we could have made peace before Hiroshima, or avoided Pearl Harbor by not putting sanctions on Japan. Since I do not believe sanctions are inherently an act of war, I would agree that Japan is the aggressor, but I would also say that we should have desired peace enough not to provoke them, if that makes sense.

    So yes, I do see some difference between WWII or Iraq, but I still oppose both of them.


    The extreme bitterness among most of the people in this thread is really sad. I agree with Gunny there.

    That said... my understanding of libertarian theory is... whoever dropped the bomb, and whoever ordered it, should have been executed for it, whether you claim that violation of the NAP is somehow "Justified" or not, there should still be punished for it. YMMV.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  17. #674
    Quote Originally Posted by JK/SEA View Post
    how is that possible? they're identical.

    admin?

    I thought so too, at first. Upon closer examination, however, it turns out that the one who voted " no" ends with a capital "o," while the one voting "yes" ends with a zero. Confusing.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  18. #675
    I love the folks who have staked out their position as our moral superiors flinging around the thought-crime claims in this thread. The best part is that they do so at the same time as saying "I can't believe I would see this on a RP forum."
    ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  19. #676
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity.
    Imprisoning kidnappers is like having sex for virginity.

  20. #677
    Anthony Gregory:

    Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the U.S. Terror State
    http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/...-terror-state/

    Being a U.S. war criminal means never having to say sorry. Paul Tibbets, the man who flew the Enola Gay and destroyed Hiroshima, lived to the impressive age of 92 without publicly expressing guilt for what he had done. He had even reenacted his infamous mission at a 1976 Texas air show, complete with a mushroom cloud, and later said he never meant this to be offensive. In contrast, he called it a “damn big insult” when the Smithsonian planned an exhibit in 1995 showing some of the damage the bombing caused.

    We might understand a man not coming to terms with his most important contribution to human history being such a destructive act. But what about the rest of the country?

    It’s sickening that Americans even debate the atomic bombings, as they do every year in early August...
    Terrorism by Any Reasonable Definition
    http://blog.independent.org/2012/08/...le-definition/

    ...The vast immorality and collectivism of the 20th century, most notably seen in the fascist and communist regimes that sought total control of society and the total subordination of individual liberty, were also on full display in the enterprise of total war, which the U.S. came to adopt as policy in World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. It should be no surprise that the main U.S. culprits behind these war policies were the very liberal Democrats who favored expansionist state power at home—FDR, Truman, and LBJ—although, of course, conservative Republicans soon enough proved just as willing to participate in and advocate such war collectivism.

    In particular, the U.S. in the 20th century came to dominate the strategy of killing people from the sky, as almost every major bombing mission was done under U.S. auspices in the post-War period. In these bombings from World War II through the war in Indochina, the U.S. killed millions of civilians with firebombings, chemical warfare, the targeted destruction of dams and other civilian infrastructure. Remnants of this policy were apparent in the U.S. policy toward Iraq from 1990 through the second Gulf War, when water treatment facilities were destroyed and civilians were deprived of clean water, food, and medicine with the express purpose of fomenting revolution.

    The only way to regard the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so many other U.S. war campaigns, as anything other than state terrorism, is to define the concept in such an absurdly narrow way as to categorically exempt the U.S. from the definition out of pure convenience. If nuclear holocaust inflicted upon innocent civilians for the purpose of securing a diplomatic result is not terrorism, then there is no such thing.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  21. #678
    Quote Originally Posted by BamaAla View Post
    I love the folks who have staked out their position as our moral superiors flinging around the thought-crime claims in this thread. The best part is that they do so at the same time as saying "I can't believe I would see this on a RP forum."
    Does Ron Paul stand for freedom of thought? Some moderators on this "RP forum" don't:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nirvikalpa View Post
    Someone who supports [x] should not be posting under a forum that bears Ron and Rand Paul's name. Just recently we've had news reporters quote something from this forum and use it against us. Is this really up for debate? If you really can't see how that can only hurt us, not help us, then you are indeed a troll, I will say it again.

  22. #679
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    If you need people to explain to you why killing a child or an innocent civilian is morally worse then killing a soldier then there is nothing anyone can say here to change your mind. You should maybe consider working for Lindsey Graham or John McCain, I bet they could use more people defending their war mongering ways. War is peace right?
    I was expecting this one.

    "well, If I need to explain to you why it is worse to kill a child than a soldier, then there is no helping you".

    It sounds nice and cliche, just like "innocent civilians" but still doesn't answer the question.

    And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!
    There are circumstances where it is true.

    And of course, I already mentioned jerks like you why I hate the $#@!ing trolls here. Eight posts up, I write:

    The only thing I take personally is the constant mis-characterization of my arguments, or the interjections of the same opinions over and over again by different people without reading the comments made first. "geeze, you thank nukin' japaneez wuz justified, den you must want to kill all der arabs... derr herr...."
    and what do you know, here comes twomp, to keep up the stupid troll bull$#@!.

    And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace! derr arabs der herrr,....
    They never say, "hey we are about to go to war to take land or make money for the weapon makers."
    Yes they do. In fact. that is exactly what Japan and Germany said they were bombing people for, glory and empire. Hitler made it clear he was doing it for lebensraum. And what was Japan's reasoning for bombing Pearl Harbor? Was it justified?


    Quote Originally Posted by jk/sea
    can't really blame him. History classes in school were basically brainwashing tactic strategies, especially if the teacher was good looking and had a good personality.
    The old "oh he's educated, must mean he is brainwashed" routine.
    What a cop-out. I also like the insinuation I've had "a" history teacher. LoL. Try about 25 or more.

    Did high school and college teach me to be opposed to American foreign policy in almost every other historical situation?
    Did they teach me that 9/11 was an inside job? Did they teach me that politics are rigged beyond belief?
    No, dude, sorry, I have looked at the facts, and come to my own conclusion on this one.

    History classes and teachers are far more likely to bemoan the loss of civilian life as if it is a greater tragedy than the loss of soldier's lives, not the other way around. You guys are the ones with the majoritarian position written through brainwashing that "civilian" necessarily means "innocent".




    ....
    Oh, one more thing, NOBODY HAS ANSWERED WHY A CIVILIAN'S LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN A SOLDIER'S.
    Last edited by UWDude; 08-08-2013 at 12:03 PM.

  23. #680
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    I was expecting this one.

    "well, If I need to explain to you why it is worse to kill a child than a soldier, then there is no helping you".

    It sounds nice and cliche, just like "innocent civilians" but still doesn't answer the question.



    There are circumstances where it is true.

    And of course, I already mentioned jerks like you why I hate the $#@!ing trolls here. Eight posts up, I write:



    and what do you know, here comes twomp, to keep up the stupid troll bull$#@!.







    The old "oh he's educated, must mean he is brainwashed" routine.
    What a cop-out.

    Did high school and college teach me to be opposed to American foreign policy in almost every other historical situation?
    Did they teach me that 9/11 was an inside job? Did they teach me that politics are rigged beyond belief?
    No.
    Translation: I have no legit reply so I will start insulting people. Why you so mad bro?



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #681
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Translation: I have no legit reply so I will start insulting people. Why you so mad bro?
    A legit reply to what? And yeah I'm insulting you, you didn't say anything legitimate to reply to. And it's not like you haven't been insulting with every post.

    why am I so mad?

    The only thing I take personally is the constant mis-characterization of my arguments, or the interjections of the same opinions over and over again by different people without reading the comments made first. "geeze, you thank nukin' japaneez wuz justified, den you must want to kill all der arabs... derr herr...."

    $#@!ing stupid trolls.
    from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5163978

    That's what you just did, so that's why?

    Any more questions, brah?

    And I like how in your reply, you still didn't answer my question about civilians and soldiers. You should work on it.
    Last edited by UWDude; 08-08-2013 at 12:08 PM.

  26. #682
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    @UWDude-

    At the end of the day, I'm just curious, what made Stalin any better than Hitler, in your mind?

    I'm not sure if Eduardo was serious about joining the Germans, but he makes an interesting point, namely, that the Stalinists WERE evil. Mind you, I'd claim FDR was evil too, although there I can see a couple orders of magnitude difference between him and Adolf. But Hitler and Stalin were pretty similar, actually Stalin killed even more people.

    I have to question the premise that Adolf Hitler's intent was to take over the entire world. And I seriously have to question the premise that, even if he wanted to do that, he could have.

    I'd suggest that the fact that Hitler was willing to send Jews to the US is evidence that his intent was not to take over the entire world. Otherwise, why would he deport any of them? Why not just kill them all immediately? I think his goal was more likely to create a "Racially pure" Europe than to conquer the whole world.

    I suppose you could argue that the murder of millions is in and of itself a reason to get involved... but once you concede that, it becomes a purely mathematical game, how many people have to be murdered before you get involved?

    My take is this... preemptive wars are bad. Yes, we were attacked in 1941, but we could have made peace before Hiroshima, or avoided Pearl Harbor by not putting sanctions on Japan. Since I do not believe sanctions are inherently an act of war, I would agree that Japan is the aggressor, but I would also say that we should have desired peace enough not to provoke them, if that makes sense.

    So yes, I do see some difference between WWII or Iraq, but I still oppose both of them.


    The extreme bitterness among most of the people in this thread is really sad. I agree with Gunny there.

    That said... my understanding of libertarian theory is... whoever dropped the bomb, and whoever ordered it, should have been executed for it, whether you claim that violation of the NAP is somehow "Justified" or not, there should still be punished for it. YMMV.
    God bless you FF... ...your posts are always way too long and too complex to reply to when I have to get to work, but I'll get back to you.

    Long story short, Stalin and Britain and the United states and France were not angels, but were better than the Nazis and Japan.

  27. #683
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    A legit reply to what?

    why am I so mad?



    from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5163978

    That's why?

    Any more questions, brah?
    I don't know why you're mad. That's why I'm asking. You are trying to convince anti-war people that nuking innocent people is somehow a good thing or WAS a good thing. Then you get agitated when the majority of people here disagree which you should have known would happen. You then start calling people names.

    I suggest you take your argument to neoconforums.com or something maybe where it may be better received.
    Last edited by twomp; 08-08-2013 at 12:20 PM.

  28. #684
    Quote Originally Posted by JK/SEA View Post
    can't really blame him. History classes in school were basically brainwashing tactic strategies,
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  29. #685
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  30. #686
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    I have read a lot of gnashing of teeth and frustration, but nobody has yet dared to answer why a soldier fighting for a good cause is worth less than a civilian supporting an evil cause.
    A soldier is engaged in an activity called warfare. In this activity, one would normally assume many participants will die. That is the purpose of the activity. By fighting a war, he assumes certain risks.

    The civilian is not fighting a war. He is going about peaceful endeavors. He should not be slaughtered, regardless of which regime he had the bad luck to be born under.

    Of course, the total elimination of warfare would be the just situation. Warfare is an illegitimate activity. It should be abolished. This would possibly result were we to eliminate states, but until then the fences and limits of just war rules mitigate the damage caused. One of those rules is: don't slaughter civilians.

  31. #687
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    .

    ...
    Oh, one more thing, NOBODY HAS ANSWERED WHY A CIVILIAN'S LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN A SOLDIER'S.
    Soldiers are supposed to be killed in war. That is their purpose.

    Civilians are not.
    Civilian casualties are to be avoided..
    Targeting Civilians is a WAR CRIME. This is understood worldwide. And has been for centuries.

    Why you can not understand this is curious. but something is bent.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  32. #688
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Long story short, Stalin and Britain and the United states and France were not angels, but were better than the Nazis and Japan.
    I do not think that is true. Do you have any data that would back this up (death tolls, rape tolls, etc.)? Or any reason whatsoever to believe it?

    If you do not have any reason which you can clearly and succinctly present, you should please consider that your belief is wrong.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #689
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    I don't know why you're mad. That's why I'm asking. You are trying to convince anti-war people that nuking innocent people is somehow a good thing or WAS a good thing. Then you get agitated when the majority of people here disagree which you should have known would happen. You then start calling people names.

    I suggest you take your argument to neoconforums.com or something maybe where it may be better received.
    "innocent"

    There you go again.

    I'm mad because many of you trolls are obviously not even reading what I am writing.

    I'm done with you fools on this topic. I'll answer Freedom Fanatic later. He is the only one that has any kind of style to show he wants to have a debate, and not a typical RPF flame war. I'll answer Helmuth too.

    rest of you can go $#@! yourselves.
    Last edited by UWDude; 08-08-2013 at 12:42 PM.

  35. #690
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    "innocent"

    There you go again.

    I'm mad because many of you trolls are obviously not even reading what I am writing.

    I'm done with you fools on this topic. I'll answer Freedom Fanatic later. He is the only one that has any kind of style to show he wants to have a debate, and not a typical RPF flame war. I'll answer Helmuth too.
    Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You call it a flame war when you are the one throwing the majority of the insults. That's funny.

Page 23 of 33 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Los Angeles police officers deemed justified in black man's slaying: L.A. Times
    By aGameOfThrones in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2015, 06:15 PM
  2. US planning to bomb Iran civilian infrastructure - NY Times
    By DamianTV in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 05:25 PM
  3. Replies: 126
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 07:36 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-19-2011, 01:54 AM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-15-2010, 06:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •