0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 06:44 am
Timber said:

Quote:
The question of the necessity or lack thereof has been hammered into rigid, no longer maleable ideologic icons, an unfortunate state of polarization which renders pointless any further laboring of the points of either position. There are those who hold there to have been clear, compelling, self evident arguments for, and those who subscribe just as strongly to arguments against. Given that neither side will accept as valid the arguments of the other side, and that Iraq has been invaded and Saddam and his regime toppled, pursuing the arguments is simply silly diversion. Even were a resolution one way or the other somehow achievable, there remains the very real and critical, urgent matter of seeing to the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people. The ongoing political posturing does not, will not, and can not serve them in any way. They are what matters, not why or how or by whom they came to their present condition.

And some folks will be far too committed to partisanship ever to carry that into their own personal equations.



So until the Iraqi's meet our criteria, we occupy their lives and lands. Until they accomplish our wishes for them, wishes that we as a nation cannot accomplish for ourselves in our own country, we will raid, bomb, degrade, and otherwise attempt to fashion their lives into our model of 'love another as you would love yourself'.

If Iraq somehow can accomplish our dictates, they lose .....

----------
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
----------

Samuel P. Huntington
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 06:57 am
The question is not whether Iraq has been invaded, but how to blunt the policies of G Bush while at the same time giving the Mid East back to the residents.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 07:10 am
An inside view .......

Quote:
comments (0)

The so-called 'Iraqi Resistance'
Many have asked me about the 'Iraqi resistance'. Who are they? Where do they operate? What do they believe in? What do they wish to achieve? What do regular Iraqis think of them?

I doubt any Iraqi, or even American official, can answer these questions accurately. However I will attempt to give you a near answer based on what Iraqis think and from my own views as well.

I believe that 'resistance' is a loose term. Most resistance movements in history at least had ideologies and political agendas fueling them. A resistance cannot be arbitrary. Also resistance movements have always acted to win the hearts of the people they are supposedly fighting for. We can't call someone who sabotages his own country's resources and facilities and targets his own people as a 'freedom fighter'. These seem more like acts of revenge to me. Revenge against fellow countrymen for accepting their new gift of freedom and for 'collaborating' with the 'invaders. And making sure that Iraqis do not enjoy the fruits of their liberation from a fascist bloodsucking regime.

Another important point is that we evidently have various groups operating which rarely cross paths with the others:

1)Diehard Baathists and Saddam loyalists. I think this is the largest insurgent group. Operating mainly in the Sunni triangle north and west of Baghdad. Former Republican Guard, and security forces. Tribes which have largely benefited from the former regime. And which possess no other merit besides loyalty and slavery to it. Most of them are experienced in combat and guerilla warfare. Attacks carried out by these groups are recognizable. Mortar attacks, RPG ambushes, anti-aircraft attacks, explosive rigged cars, and IED's planted on highways and main roads. They may be broken into smaller groups with different names each operating in its own area with no coordination with others. They are also behind assasinations of 'collaborators', judges, university professors, municipal council members, and IP lieutenants. Acts of sabotage against oil pipelines, electricity cables, and other vital facilities. They are large on propaganda and cirulating rumours and conspiracy theories.

2)Local Islamic extremists and groups such as Ansar Al-Islam. Also not a force to be underestimated. Their attacks are less accurate and successful than the former. They are supported financially by foreign Arab extremists and sympathizers. They are thought to be behind the threats against schools and hospitals and Iraqi 'collaborators'. Call them Wahhabis, Salafees, etc.

3)Foreign infiltrators. They enter Iraq from neighbouring countries mainly from Syria and Saudi Arabia. Most of them young and brainwashed men from different Arab and Muslim countries who believe they are doing a great good in fighting the 'infidel' Americans. They obviously have some support inside Iraq, as it would be impossible for them to operate alone in a foreign country. They are the deadliest. They were responsible for the suicide attacks against the UN, Red Cross, and IP stations. Suicide bombings are their main form of attacks. Call them Al-Qaeda if you wish.

4)Individual acts of revenge against coalition forces fueled by tribal or religious humiliation. For example when a local tribal Sheikh's house is raided or when a local cleric is detained, many of their followers will feel offended and may carry out individual attacks, such as the Ammarah incident against the British and the attacks in Al-Sadr city, Najaf, and Karbala by Muqtada Al-Sadr's followers.


In my opinion each one of these groups act independently from the other. Each one is a problem. I believe that to counter the first group a little firmness is required such as what is going on in Tikrit right now. Isolating the area, house to house searching, and confiscating weapons from locals. Its not too late yet for such action. Securing the borders would prevent sneaking of Arab terrorists.

Iraqis reactions to attacks vary widely. Most are indifferent but lately the attacks against the IP stations and the threats against schools have largely changed that. Iraqis now openly show their disgust for such actions and this has also made them eager to report any suspicious individuals in their neighbourhoods. We have our fools such as the 'dancing peasants of Fallujah' as Alaa nicely put it, who show their glee whenever they come across a camera. And on many occasions , as I have told you earlier, Al-Jazeera and Al-Aribiyah deliberately encourage people to do so before rolling the cameras.



# posted by zeyad : 11:30 AM



SOURCE


Edgar, Nov of 2004 .....
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 07:45 am
Quote:
"Well if anarchy is not rife in Iraq, I'm pleased. I will book a Christmas break in Falluja." hi, steve ! would love to join you on your christmas holiday in falluju.


Sorry Hamburger, I was planning a quiet solitary stay in that out of the way place. Somewhere to get away from all the brouhaha surrounding the pagan mid winter feasts. I will of course pass on your best wishes to Mr Hussein, and Mr Binladen should I bump into them. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 07:54 am
This heads-up came in today from "The Daily Mislead" -- the daily notice of Bush prevarications. The issue resonates in my part of the country where there are plenty of retired military and lots of active bases. Not to mention talk shows with irate military calling in about Bush's hypocrisy when it comes to treatment of vets (not to mention the active guys!):


PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATED COMMITMENT TO VETERANS NOT REFLECTED IN BUDGET

President Bush often emphasizes his commitment to veterans, saying in 2001, "My administration understands America's obligations not only go to those who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past: to our veterans."

But the 200,000 veterans waiting six months or more for their first appointment at a VA facility would be denied access to VA health care under
Bush's plan. Others would be charged $250 annual enrollment fees, doubled prescription costs and increased co-payments.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 10:38 am
The VA 'healthcare" system has been in the midst of a slow-motion implosion for years. VietNam era personnel are getting older, and needful of more care (medications/clinic appts)--there is an epidemic of Hep C reportees from many years ago--and some weird illnesses are being reported by ALOT of Desert Storm/Gulf War vets.

All incredibly serious and horrible. And not Bush's fault.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 10:52 am
Tartar, I didn't remember the exact words spoken by GWBush, but remember it's content very well. It makes me wonder why so many Americans still trust this devil who calls himself a christian. How do these people sleep at night?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 10:53 am
Sofia
Sofia, where have you been? Have not seen any posts from you for a while.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 11:05 am
Hi BBB--
My CFIDS has improved ( Very Happy ) enough that I am able to work. I ran out and got a job. Very Happy I'm still VERY tired after working and trying to keep the house going--so online time is sort of rare. I'm off for two days, so I'm indulging. Cool
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 11:26 am
Gel wrote:
So until the Iraqi's meet our criteria, we occupy their lives and lands. Until they accomplish our wishes for them, wishes that we as a nation cannot accomplish for ourselves in our own country, we will raid, bomb, degrade, and otherwise attempt to fashion their lives into our model of 'love another as you would love yourself'.

If Iraq somehow can accomplish our dictates, they lose .....


Now, if you can't see how that validates my point, that only further validates my point. Political posturing is the problem at hand, and it is overshadowing the problems and needs of the Iraqi people. That is not likely to change. It is more gratifying for some to argue a point than to resolve an issue.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 12:08 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Gel wrote:
So until the Iraqi's meet our criteria, we occupy their lives and lands. Until they accomplish our wishes for them, wishes that we as a nation cannot accomplish for ourselves in our own country, we will raid, bomb, degrade, and otherwise attempt to fashion their lives into our model of 'love another as you would love yourself'.

If Iraq somehow can accomplish our dictates, they lose .....


Now, if you can't see how that validates my point, that only further validates my point. Political posturing is the problem at hand, and it is overshadowing the problems and needs of the Iraqi people. That is not likely to change. It is more gratifying for some to argue a point than to resolve an issue.


Ok Timber, help me out here.
In your view, political or otherwise, what criteria must be accomplished before our kids can come home? What has to happen in your point of view?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 01:01 pm
Geli, if I might be permitted to answer..

As the legal basis for the occupation of Iraq (according to US/UK) is disarming that country of its illegal weapons, then presumably American and British troops can be withdrawn once that is accomplished.

But as UK/US never got legal authority from the UN in the first place, and as coalition forces have failed to produce evidence of Iraqi WMD (the one thing that made the invation legal even by their own terms), it is safe to conclude that the occupation of Iraq is illegal.

Thus British and American forces are acting illegally and consequently are committing acts against a civilian population contrary to the rules of war. Soldiers on the ground have no defence of following illegal orders even if they were only shown to be illegal after the event. That was established at Nuremburg. American and British forces are committing war crimes in Iraq just by being there, and those political authorities giving illegal orders are subject to sanction by the International Criminal Court. But of course Bush didn't sign up to the ICC, something that with hindsight seems to have been remarkably astute. But Blair did, and there are plenty of people around relishing the opportunty of putting him in the dock. How ironic that a leader of the Labour Party advocating an"ethical" foreign policy, signing up for the ICC, and being a trained lawyer himself is quite likely to be the first British leader to face charges of War Crimes.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 01:42 pm
My understanding, Steve, is that though we aren't part of the ICC, we are nonetheless liable for private suits and the opinion seems to be that they could be very serious, including for the economy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 01:51 pm
Frankly, I would really hate to see Tony Blair face charges on "war crimes," but wouldn't mind seieng GWBush charged in the world court. Just a personal sentiment.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 01:58 pm
Well, that makes two personal sentiments. It would certainly represent a long-needed correction in balance of power.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 02:00 pm
Quote:
LOST AND FOUND: CENTCOM ON PAKISTAN

A U.S. military web page on Pakistan's role in the "war on
terrorism" that the government removed from the web has been posted
on a non-governmental web site.

Information on Pakistan published on the U.S. Central Command web
site was removed several months ago for unknown reasons. See the
link to an empty page on Pakistan on this site:

http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Coalition/joint.htm

But, as now routinely occurs, the deleted information has been
provided elsewhere. In this case, the deleted Pakistan page was
posted by the independent Information Clearinghouse:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pakistan-uscentcom.htm

President Bush had it right. Future historians, he said last week,
"will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and
central control -- and marvel at the power of instant communications
to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders."


See:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html


source: SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 99
November 10, 2003
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 03:15 pm
Quote:


Shocking images shame US forces


By Yvonne Ridley and Lawrence Smallman
Monday 10 November 2003, 0:46 Makka Time, 21:46 GMT

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/6B135A01-B99C-41C1-B36A-53197281D21E/16716/D21E54312012449E962D503F820F829B.jpg
Fearful women and children are bound by US soldiers

A series of shocking pictures revealing US soldiers tying up Iraqi women and children in their own home has provoked international outrage.



The occupying forces have now come under renewed fire for their treatment of ordinary Iraqis as shown in the pictures published today by Aljazeera.net.

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is conducting an investigation and seeking advice before taking further action.

"This kind of image increases resentment of American troops in Iraq and can also play a major part in demoralising troops who are having to tie up small children.

"We are seeking to raise this issue further in the appropriate arena," said Washington CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper.

A spokesman for the London-based Islamic Observation Centre said the pictures showed a "complete disregard for the human rights of the Iraqi people".

He added: "A normal human being should be repulsed by the very idea of tying up children.

Carrying explosives

"You have to question the mental state of soldiers who are being forced to do this."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/6B135A01-B99C-41C1-B36A-53197281D21E/16719/E4CDE4EDE0A04A6EA220F860C773CC4E.jpg
A child, aged around six, watches
nervously as a US soldier ties her


The IOC recently supplied pictures to Aljazeera.net showing US soldiers frisking a four-year-old boy in an Afghan village in Paktika as part of a military operation.

A senior officer justified the action at the time saying the child could have been carrying explosives. He added the security of US soldiers came first before any hearts and minds operation.

Those particular pictures provoked a huge, mixed response from Aljazeera users who inundated the website with feedback expressing concern.

This latest series of pictures was sent to US military headquarters Centcom in Florida for a comment. Major David Farlow warned Aljazeera.net not to publish the pictures on this site.

"It would be irresponsible. I can't second guess what has happened here without knowing all the facts but US forces operating in Iraq have to use the appropriate level of restraint to the mission.

"US soldiers will use minimum forces wherever possible," he added.

However John Rees, head of the British Stop The War Coalition, condemned the behaviour of the occupying forces.

Colonial occupiers

"This kind of behaviour produced a response which forced the British out of India and will undoubtedly force the British and Americans out of Iraq.

The American and British forces in Iraq are showing all the worst traits of colonial occupying forces throughout history."

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence in London said: "There are a range of options available to the commander on the ground based on the information received. Restraint depends on the situation."

However a senior military source said: "This sort of action would be highly unusual for British troops and would have to be authorised at the highest level.

"We just don't do things like that. We are working very closely with Iraqi people on the ground in Basra and prioritise in winning hearts and minds.

"We made a dreadful error earlier on in the campaign and lost some military police as a result. It was a tragedy which we have learned from and do not want to repeat."


SOURCE
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 03:45 pm
*LOL*

Ok...I can breathe now! The funny thing is that these pictures came out in like June with an entirely different article. It's funny how the propaganda machines of the East and the West differ. I don't remember the full gist of the original article, but I know it involved the surprise inspections of suspected homes of militants. The original article also talked about how respectful and caring the soldiers were in explaining why they had to do what they did. There was an interpreter there as well. The women and children, while maybe scared, were encouraged to play along as though it were a game and were soon released after the home was inpected.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 05:37 pm
McGentrix wrote:
*LOL*

Ok...I can breathe now! The funny thing is that these pictures came out in like June with an entirely different article. It's funny how the propaganda machines of the East and the West differ. I don't remember the full gist of the original article, but I know it involved the surprise inspections of suspected homes of militants. The original article also talked about how respectful and caring the soldiers were in explaining why they had to do what they did. There was an interpreter there as well. The women and children, while maybe scared, were encouraged to play along as though it were a game and were soon released after the home was inpected.


If you are going to make **** up at least make it believable!! Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 05:49 pm
Article from MEMRI

Anop-ed by Abd Al-Bari Atwan, editor of London Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, claiming that the U.S. is to blame for the Arab world's hatred of it, [1] sparked a debate in the Arab press. Munir Al-Mawari, a Yemenite journalist and columnist for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote several articles responding to Atwan's claims. The following are excerpts from two of Al-Mawari's articles:

The Arab Media Fans Hatred of the U.S.

In an article titled, "False Interpretation of the Reasons for Arabs' Growing Hatred of America," which was published in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, [2] Munir Al-Mawari wrote: "It is fortunate that the committee appointed by the U.S. government to study the roots of Arab hatred towards the U.S… did not seek the help of Abd Al-Bari Atwan and his likes in the Arab media. Day and night, they promote lies and misinformation, and they [themselves] are a primary reason for the flaring of this hatred towards America among the common folk…

"The Abd Al-Bari Atwan [appearing] on CNN is completely different from the Abd Al-Bari Atwan on the Al-Jazeera network or in his Al-Quds Al-Arabi daily. On CNN, Atwan speaks solemnly and with total composure, presenting rational and balanced views. This is in complete contrast with his fuming appearances on Al-Jazeera and in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, in which he whips up the emotions of multitudes of viewers and readers.

"Abd Al-Bari Atwan is part of the problem… and our problem is that it is not only America that we hate. Our Arab societies are societies of hate; we were raised to hate each other even before we hated others… The Arab societies are… also failed societies.

"The U.S. realized that it had supported corrupt and terrorist Arab regimes that created fertile ground for poverty and terror. For this reason, Washington began to change its policy and to extend a hand to people rather than to their governments, in the hope that they would progress and rid themselves of their corrupt regimes. Unfortunately… since in our culture, idiocy and poverty go hand in hand, the Arab people express hostility toward America, instead of benefiting from the convergence of their interests and the global interests of the greatest superpower…"

The Arabs Can Learn From Israeli Democracy

"According to Abd Al-Bari Atwan, 'the U.S. has given the world a model of equality, human rights, an independent judicial authority, and democratic institutions, but has always acted to deprive Arabs and Muslims of these achievements…'

"Mr. Abd Al-Bari Atwan… It is not possible to impose these achievements if they don't want them. Democracy is not a commodity that the U.S. can export or donate.

"Atwan complains that, 'At the Aqaba summit, the U.S. president pledged to preserve Israel's Jewish identity…' and [he wonders] 'how the U.S. - a country with ethnic, religious, and cultural pluralism - can support a racist country that is based on religion…'

"Mr. Atwan, the U.S. does not support Israel because it is a Jewish country, but because Israel has succeeded in linking its existence with the supreme national American interest. We have 22 religious countries. In all of them but one, the constitution stipulates that Islam is the national religion and that Islamic law is the principle source of legislation. [And yet] despite this, the U.S. maintains ties with us. The reality is that Israel is more democratic than any Arab country, and the suffering of the Palestinian citizen in Israel is much less than the suffering of the Arab citizen in his homeland and his own Arab country, whatever country that may be …"

The U.S. Will Rebuild Iraq As It Restored Japan and Germany

"Atwan wonders 'how the American government can justify a war against a besieged country [i.e. Iraq]… based on the lie regarding weapons of mass destruction.' My dear sir, Iraq had no need to hide weapons of mass destruction because Saddam Hussein's regime was the greatest weapon of mass destruction, and this weapon was destroyed. The mass graves are overwhelming proof that this regime was a regime of mass destruction. The Americans could not risk leaving Saddam in power just because he may not have possessed such weapons [of mass destruction], when he had already used them against his people and against Iran…

"Atwan says, 'The U.S. has the greatest experience in the world… in sowing destruction, and the greatest failure in bringing prosperity and peace. Thus it left ruin in Somalia, in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq…'

"[Mr. Atwan], history teaches us that there was never a country in whose affairs the U.S. intervened that did not experience rebirth. Rather than mention Somalia, whose affairs were never run by the U.S., why not present as evidence post-World War II Japan, Germany, and France?… Japan and Germany did not complain about the American occupation because they realized that the American presence would ultimately contribute to their peoples' interests… [In Afghanistan] it suffices that the worst theocratic regime in human history has been erased from the map, and [as for Iraq] the dagger of the worst Arab regime of our age has been removed from our necks. Soon we will see the results of the quiet [reconstruction] taking place in Iraq…"

Had the Arabs Possessed WMD They Would Have Destroyed the World

"According to Atwan, 'the American administration… that is trying to destroy WMD forgets that the U.S. was the only country in history ever to use weapons of mass destruction… While it permits Israel… to possess such weapons, it threatens Iraq, Iran, and Syria if they only dare to think of possessing WMD.'

"…The danger inherent in WMD is the possibility that such weapons will be within the reach of reckless regimes and terror gangs… The U.S. possesses a huge WMD arsenal, but has not used them since World War II. In contrast, we, the Arabs, have threatened to destroy half the state of Israel, when we had at our disposal a very small quantity of this type of weapon and after we used it against our Arab brothers… What would happen if we had real WMD at our disposal? Considering the hatred boiling within us towards ourselves and towards the entire world, we might destroy the entire planet…"

The Arab Media Does Not Let Defenders of the U.S. Speak

To Atwan's claim that "the Arab satellite channels suffer from a severe shortage of voices and figures willing to defend the U.S…. because it is indefensible…" Al-Mawari responds: "There are many who [would] defend the U.S. in the Arab media - but in the Arab media jungle, dominated by extremists or by those who fear them, America's defenders don't have a chance… Does the U.S. realize that it must fight the weapons of bias and mass fraud before it eliminates WMD?"

The Arab World is Awash in Neo-Reactionaries

In another article, titled "The Neo-Reactionaries Invade the Arab World," published in the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, [3] Al-Mawari wrote: "Since the fall of the USSR, the Arab leftists are struggling and groping, like blind men in the dark, for a new path… and they now ride the [horse] of the fundamentalist Islamic parties… which have already led their supporters to death…

"The Arab nationalists and socialists cling to enmity towards the West and reviling [of] the U.S. and forget… the common ground that ties them to [Western] culture, to civil [society], to modernism, and to progress. These people have made a pact with the reactionaries, with backwardness, with extremism, and with the adherents of the ideology of suicide, on the now-disproved pretext of the existence of a common enemy [facing them] - and they mean the U.S.

"In contrast, after the events of September 11 the Americans realized… that extremism and backwardness do not distinguish between Arab and American, Indian or Brazilian. The danger is enveloping all and uprooting it is an obligation incumbent upon all peoples of the world… "What is great about the Americans is that they learn from experience and amend their policy in accordance with the new reality. Luckily for the Arab people, the neo-conservatives are in power in the U.S. It seems that they grasped that the U.S.'s former policy led to the strengthening of the extremists and the destruction of the enlightened forces in the Arab world, and therefore they undertook to amend the previous policy… If the Arab nationalists or socialists would look around them, they would realize that the danger comes not from the U.S., and not from the neo-conservatives, but from those amongst them..."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2025 at 02:08:54