0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 02:41 pm
McTag wrote:
This is from an interview with Noam Chomsky published in The Guardian today. It is offered as a counter to the gent above who still thinks the action in Iraq was to take the sword of Islam from Saddam's hands.

Just curious, but who other than you has said anything like that in this discussion? (Maybe I missed a post?)
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 02:51 pm
this is the post I meant, Scrat

ican711nm wrote:
AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT HAS INCREASED THE INCIDENCE OF WORLD TERRORISM, AND NOT OUR THUS FAR INSUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RESIST IT.

First paragraph from bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa:
Quote:
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.


One more time:
Quote:

I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped


Please know your enemy before you and yours can no longer know anything.


It's true that Saddam was used to indulging himself in lengthy and fanciful oratory, partly because like Gaddafi he fancied making himself into a pan-arab leader; but no-one else in the Arab world took him seriously in that role, and nor should you.

The sword he held in his hands was rusty, blunted and broken from years of war and UN sanctions. he didn't threaten anyone except other Iraqis.

The reason for the invasion lies elsewhere, I would respectfully suggest.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 02:57 pm
Whoops, Bin Laden not Saddam.

I agree Bin Laden is a more potent threat. He's got the money, the connections, and the cred.

My main purpose in writing is to oppose the invasion of Iraq, which has little to do with the terrorist threat.

Sorry for my slip.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 04:16 pm
Quote:
U.S. Allies on Iraq Fear They're Targets

Tuesday March 16, 2004 9:01 PM
By MONIKA SCISLOWSKA

Associated Press Writer

WARSAW, Poland (AP) - From Poland to Australia, countries with troops in Iraq fear they could be the next terrorist target as signs increase that Islamic extremists were behind last week's carnage in Spain.

Take Poland, once isolated behind the Iron Curtain and now a key U.S. ally in Iraq: Security officials here acknowledge they have virtually no experience dealing with terrorism, and leaders are warning citizens to wake up to the threat.

Most nations contributing to the Iraq mission say they will remain in the peacekeeping force despite the Madrid bombings, which killed 201 people Thursday.

But Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero announced that he would withdraw Spain's 1,300 peacekeepers by June 30 unless the United Nations takes over in Iraq, and Honduras followed suit Tuesday.

Honduras will withdraw its 370 troops from the Spanish brigade in June - two months before they and 380 sent by Central American neighbor El Salvador were to return home.

Spanish investigators have arrested several suspects including a man linked to the alleged leader of the country's al-Qaida cell. European intelligence agencies are also trying to identify a purported al-Qaida operative who claimed in a videotape that the group carried out the bombings to punish Spain's backing of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Zapatero, a Socialist, was swept into power during elections Sunday, three days after the Madrid attacks. Most Spaniards had opposed the previous government's support of the Iraq war, and many believed conservative Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's pro-U.S. policies made Spain a target for terrorists.

The events in Spain have raised the specter that al-Qaida - if indeed it was responsible - may seek to influence elections elsewhere with strategically timed attacks, though government officials generally deny the link.

Denmark, a country with low crime and few visible security jitters after the Madrid attacks, would seem an unlikely target. But it sent 410 troops to Iraq, and a local analyst said the Spanish election sent ``an unfortunate signal that international terror pays.''

``Now they will try to repeat the success in other countries that have supported the war against terror, hoping they can scare them to pull out the troops,'' Peter Viggo Jacobsen of the Danish Institute for International Studies told The Associated Press.

Even more exposed is Poland, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld put in the category of ``new Europe'' Iraq war supporters. It commands a 9,500-strong multinational force as part of the 36-nation coalition.

A November poll found that 75 percent of Poles feared their country's role in Iraq would lead to a terrorist attack at home. Since the Madrid bombings, Poland has increased security at airports, train stations and borders.

The Madrid bombings ``brought the threat to our doorstep,'' Marek Siwiec, the national security adviser to President Aleksander Kwasniewski, told AP.

``People realize we could be the target of terrorists. Some say they are afraid of traveling by subway, and people realize something is unusual when they see more security agents,'' Warsaw-based defense analyst Wojciech Luczak said.

In Italy, whose next election is scheduled for 2006, leaders insist the country would be a target even if it hadn't contributed 3,000 troops to Iraq - a commitment the government said it would not change.

``Iraq has nothing to do with it. Italy, like all the democratic countries in the world, is a target,'' Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told the La Repubblica daily.

He noted that Morocco has also been hit by terror attacks, and that countries like Germany and France, which opposed war in Iraq, do not consider themselves safe.

French officials announced Tuesday they are investigating threats issued by a radical Islamic group against France and its overseas interests. The shadowy group identified itself as the ``Servants of Allah the Powerful and Wise,'' the ministry said in a statement, adding that the group was unknown to French authorities.

RTL radio reported that Le Parisien newspaper received a letter threatening Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin over France's plan to ban Islamic head scarves and other religious apparel in schools.

No sense of panic has beset Italy. People are still flocking to discos, cinemas, soccer games, and a good-sized crowd turned out Sunday in St. Peter's Square to see Pope John Paul II, who condemned the Madrid attacks.

But former ambassador and newspaper commentator Sergio Romano said European countries involved in Iraq were vulnerable. ``Of course it does become much more visible after the Spanish events,'' he told AP.

Australia - which goes to the polls later this year - has, like Spain, been a staunch supporter of the U.S.-led war on terror. President Bush even described Prime Minister John Howard as his ``sheriff'' in Asia.

Howard acknowledges a terror menace, but denies that it is any worse since his government sent 2,000 troops to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq last year. About 850 remain.

But even an FBI agent visiting Sydney warned Tuesday that Australia should brace for an attack because of its close ties to Washington.

``Any country that allies itself with the United States, unfortunately, is a target,'' John Pistole, the FBI's executive assistant director for counterterrorism, told Sydney's 2UE radio station. ``I would agree with the statement that an attack is likely inevitable.''

Ukraine has 1,650 troops serving under Polish command in Iraq, and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych is ``very anxious'' about that in light of the Madrid bombings, his spokesman said Tuesday.

But Ukrainian officials made clear there were no plans to pull out.

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 05:04 pm
McTag, As a matter of fact, we've heard the news of turning over sovereignty to Iraq on June 30. There is absolutely no mention of US plans to establish a large embassy "to control" the economy and our large military presence to guarantee that control. This administration has perfected the shell game very well.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 06:04 pm
On the ABC/BBC/&c survey Walter and Scrat posted about, TNR has a most interesting item in its Iraq'd blog. It points out that when reading the results, one should note carefully the chasm that exists between Kurdish and Arab respondents.

Consider this:

Quote:
According to the poll, 48 percent of Iraqis think the war was justified; 39 percent think it was wrong. Fifty-one percent oppose the presence of coalition forces; 39 percent support it. That about corresponds with the ambivalence that John Zogby found last August. Except that that's not the whole story.

The only reason those anemic pro-U.S. numbers are as high as they are is because they incorporate the massively pro-war, pro-U.S. feelings of Iraqi Kurds. When the poll disaggregates how Iraqi Arabs feel, the numbers shift substantially against the U.S., something that "World News Tonight" didn't mention in its coverage of the poll. That's not so surprising in itself, since Sunni and Shia Arabs in Iraq have spent the past year feeling a combination of awe, frustration, and humiliation toward their occupiers. But the depth of the split is breathtaking, and it carries two implications. First, with just over three months to go before the handover of power to an interim Iraqi government, it appears the United States has lost the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds. Second, the gulf between Iraqi Kurd opinion and Arab opinion presents a daunting challenge to creating a united country--particularly when the temporary constitution points the way toward balkanization.

For instance, look at the numbers on support for the invasion. Iraqis as a whole split in favor of it by 48 to 39 percent. But factor out the Kurds--87 percent of whom back it--and the picture gets more complex. Iraqi Arabs are somewhat against the war: 40 percent say it was right, while 46 percent say it was wrong. There's no religious breakdown, so we don't know how many of those respondents are Shia and how many are Sunni, which would be very helpful information. But as it is, consider that in total, 42 percent say that the invasion "liberated" Iraq, while 41 percent say it "humiliated" the country. The Kurds split on that question 82-11; for Arabs, 33 percent consider the war a liberation, while 48 consider it humiliating. That's on top of the fact that across all regions of the country, people report that their personal lives are better now than before the war, and they expect them to improve--which suggests that regardless of how they personally feel affected by the war, Iraqi Arabs believe it was unfortunate for the nation as a whole.

Security is overwhelmingly the highest priority among Iraqis. Sixty-four percent rank it as their top concern, with the next contender, holding elections, garnering 8 percent. Yet only 18 percent say coalition forces should remain "until security is restored." Thirty-six percent say they should only stay in Iraq "until an Iraqi gov't is in place"--and the poll is painfully unclear on whether that means the interim government scheduled to take over July 1 or a permanent, elected government next year. On the question of U.S. troops, the ethnic breakdown is significant as well. Kurds support the presence of coalition forces by a margin of 82 percent to 12 percent. Only 30 percent of Arabs feel the same way--and 60 percent oppose the U.S. troop presence. No statistic here bodes particularly well for U.S. plans to negotiate an open-ended basing arrangement with a sovereign Iraqi government.

Nowhere is the Arab-Kurdish split starker than on the question of Iraq's future political structure. The questions were not very nuanced: Respondents were offered the option of "unified country, central government in Baghdad," "regional states with a federal government," and "divided into separate independent states." That doesn't allow for evaluating the varieties of federalism available. But an overwhelming 90 percent of Arabs prefer a centralized model, with only 5 percent favoring a federal Iraq, which helps account for the anti-federalist protests among Iraqi Arabs this weekend. Among the Kurds, 26 percent want centralism. While that's certainly a vastly higher figure than I imagined--and only 12 percent opt for independence--Iraq's Kurds back the federal model by 58 percent.

As for the kind of government Iraqis want: 48 percent desire democracy; 28 percent a strong leader "for life"; and 21 percent an Islamic state. Broken down between one year and five years, the top preference--a massive 47 percent--is for a strong leader over the next year; this number drops to 35 percent after five years. Conversely, 28 percent want democracy in a year, but 42 percent want it in five. Not surprisingly, those who want an Islamic state, 10 percent, want it as strongly in one year as in five. No ethnic breakdown on these questions is available.

There's a lot more in this poll than what's listed above. One surprising result: While only 2 percent want to see the Governing Council in place in a year's time, 39 percent express confidence in it. (By contrast, "religious leaders" are trusted by 70 percent of Iraqis, and the CPA by 28 percent.) Yet the most important thing the poll tells us is that in our first year of control, we have resoundingly failed to live up to the expectations of the Iraqis. That's not to say we haven't helped, as the figures about Iraqis considering themselves better off than before the war demonstrate. But their sense of personal advancement has not translated into significant feelings of good will for the U.S., at least among Iraqi Arabs. And with only a few months before the transfer of power, there doesn't seem to be much we can do to turn that figure around.

More ominous is the massive discrepancy between how Arabs and Kurds view their present political situation and their visions for the future. As I've written for the past week, the TAL sets the country on precisely the wrong course--heightening ethnic divisions rather than diminishing them. But even if the TAL opted for an administrative federalism, the psychic divide would still be present--and it would still be formidable. Overcoming this divide is the central question facing Iraqi politics.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 08:12 pm
what Iraqis want doesn't matter
Future US Embassy in Iraq to surpass others

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The next U.S. Embassy in Iraq, scheduled to open in July, will eventually become the biggest American diplomatic mission in the world, U.S. officials say. While the future U.S. diplomatic presence in Baghdad is still in the planning phases, officials here agree that an enormous American contingent -- of 3,000 or more U.S. employees -- will be required in Iraq long after July 1, when the United States plans to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2391809

*The US will be in Iraq forever. Iraqis have no say so about it. They can kill Americans there for years. The US Govt. under any Admin. will stay.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:02 pm
Seems this administration isn't sure of June 30 after all.
*****************
Rumsfeld Hedges on June 30 Iraqi Sovereignty Date
Tue Mar 16, 7:23 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday he could not be sure that a June 30 date would be met for ending the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) and handing sovereignty over to Iraq.

"Everybody, including the Iraqi Governing Council, has set that date as a target," he said in a radio interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation at the Pentagon (news - web sites).


"And do I think it will happen? It has a chance of happening, yes. Will it happen for sure? Who knows? I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow," Rumsfeld added.


The United States, the United Nations (news - web sites) and the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council set the date for restoring Iraqi self-governance, which ended with the U.S.-led invasion a year ago that toppled President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


"What we do know is that the Iraqis and the coalition have worked together, and the Iraqis have produced an interim constitution. They're pointed toward the date of June 30th. And why can't we just wait and see how well they do? They've done pretty darn well so far," Rumsfeld added.


Although the Iraqis have taken the important step of agreeing on an interim constitution until elections can be held at the end of this year or in 2005, they and U.S. authorities have not yet agreed on the form of the Iraqi body that would take power in Iraq on the return of sovereignty.


The Rumsfeld interview was one of a number by Pentagon leaders to mark this week's anniversary of the Iraq invasion.


Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was also asked about the June 30 date. "Well, I'm not in the business of predicting dates," he told CNN.


"We are very committed to having that handover take place on that date. And I think it's important because it will mean the end of the occupation. It will mean Iraqis being in charge of their own country. But it's not going to be a change from night to day," he said.


A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that "right now we are working toward a June 30 sovereignty transfer and that's our operating assumption."


U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) has emphasized the importance of June 30. After a U.N. team visited Iraq last month, he issued a report saying, "Virtually every Iraqi with whom the mission met stressed that the date of June 30, 2004, is a deadline that must be respected." (Additional reporting by Saul Hudson)
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:07 pm
McTag wrote:
this is the post I meant, Scrat

Boy, did I miss that one! Thanks.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:19 pm
Re: what Iraqis want doesn't matter
pistoff wrote:
Future US Embassy in Iraq to surpass others

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The next U.S. Embassy in Iraq, scheduled to open in July, will eventually become the biggest American diplomatic mission in the world, U.S. officials say. While the future U.S. diplomatic presence in Baghdad is still in the planning phases, officials here agree that an enormous American contingent -- of 3,000 or more U.S. employees -- will be required in Iraq long after July 1, when the United States plans to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2391809

*The US will be in Iraq forever. Iraqis have no say so about it. They can kill Americans there for years. The US Govt. under any Admin. will stay.


Yes. And they will have a huge military footprint there too. This is their staging area for the middle east, and along with the control of oil resources, it's why they are there at all. That's also why the US will not allow any government to form in Iraq which might ask the US to subsequently leave - talk of democracy notwithstanding.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:38 am
Is George gonna screw this up too???

Top Shia cleric wants UN back in Iraq

Tuesday 16 March 2004, 22:12 Makka Time, 19:12 GMT

Ayat Allah Al-Sistani denies he criticised the UN
Related:
Sistani wants UN guarantee on poll
UN envoy backs al-Sistani on poll
Bush wants UN to sweet-talk Sistani

Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback

A senior Iraqi Shia leader has told the United Nations he wants the world body to play a role in the country's future and distanced himself from those opposing the organisation's return.

Al-Akhdar al-Ibrahimi, the former Algerian foreign minister, told a news conference at the UN Ayat Allah Ali al-Sistani sent a written message through an aide to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan "a few days ago" saying he had nothing to do with negative press reports from some members of the Iraqi Governing Council.



Al-Ibrahimi went to Baghdad last month with a UN team to study the feasibility of holding elections before June and to discuss proposals for an interim government when the US-led occupation ends on 30 June.



He quoted al-Sistani as saying, "As I told Mr Brahimi, we do want the UN to play a role in Iraq."



Formal invitation



The note from al-Sistani denied he had anything to do with the criticism of al-Ibrahimi and the UN, most of which came from former exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council close to the US Defence Department.



But al-Ibrahimi said he did not know when he would return to Iraq and was waiting for a formal invitation from the US-led occupation authorities and the 25-member Governing Council.



"I don't think it is so much a credibility problem for the UN as internal politics in Iraq"

Kofi Annan,
secretary-general, UN

The about-face by Chalabi and others is of concern to the US whose officials in Baghdad and Washington have asked the United Nations to help give legitimacy to an interim Iraqi government that is to take power by 30 June.



Annan, speaking to reporters before al-Ibrahimi's news conference, said he made it clear "we are prepared to go back and assist should they want us to do so and I am waiting for them to let us know."



"I don't think it is so much a credibility problem for the UN as internal politics in Iraq," he added.



Several Shia members of the Governing Council have expressed reservations about al-Ibrahimi, a Sunni Arab with a secular, nationalist background.



Photos have circulated of al-Ibrahimi shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, in an apparent effort to discredit the diplomat. Al-Ibrahimi in 1998 set up a visit between Annan and Saddam Hussein, although it was not known if the photos were authentic.



A spokesman for Chalabi said the United Nations had opposed "the liberation of Iraq" and mishandled the oil-for-food programme, put in place to alleviate the impact of sanctions.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 08:50 am
Its getting near the end for me on this thread.

"No blood for oil". Who could disagree?

Sadly countries have been fighting over oil or mineral resources for ever. Its hard to admit this (and would be impossible if I were standing for election) - I would much rather it was true that we had to defend ourselves against Iraqi wmd, or that we felt so moved by the plight of the Iraqi people that we had to invade- but shedding blood for oil, or rather the control of oil resources, is exactly what we have done. We may console ourselves by saying well at least Saddam is gone; and that we can now help the Iraqis build a better Iraq etc etc but we can't any longer be blind to the reality of what we have done. So should the Brits follow the Spanish out of Iraq? Its interesting that neither of the oppostion parties advocate this. The Liberal Democrats in particular are well placed to reap huge political advantage if they stood on a platform of pulling British troops out. It would offer a real alternative, and win them a lot of support. But they don't argue that way. For those of us who know the truth about Iraq we are all living under a burden of guilt. The least we can do now to solve our own conscience, if nothing else, is to make good on our promise to make Iraq a better place.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:06 am
Steve, Our promise to make Iraq a better place is going to take much effort on the international community, and I don't see that happening. On Nightline last night, the topic was "what's happening in Iraq." It seems it depends on what part of the country one takes a poll of the people. The Sunni seems to be the least happy with the current situation, and wants to see the American occupation end. What was surprising was that the majority of Iraqis are happy with the way they are progressing economically and politically. There is still wide decension between the three tribes, but their geographical separation seems to be working relatively well - considering. We must now hope for the best, but I see deep divisions within the Iraqi's own people. It will be difficult, but leaving it entirely is not an option.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:27 am
That's why a survey of people from all parts of Iraq--like the new one from the BEEB, is what you need to get an accurate picture, not cherry picking stories from the places where things are worst or best.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:39 am
ci

One thing I forgot, although Zapetero repeated his promise to pull out Spanish troops, he made it conditional on the UN playing the lead role in security operations by June 30. In other words if this happened, Spanish troops would stay under UN authority. If this forced a change of mind with Bush it would be great. If the UN took the lead role, not only would Spain stay, but I think the Germans and even the French could be pursuaded to send troops. But as it was always Bush's intention to invade on his own if necessary, and given the prevailing attitude in his administration towards the UN, I think relinquishing control to the UN by 30th June just will not happen.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:55 am
Zapetero always said in the campaign, Spain should (would, if he became PM) only stay in Iraq under UN authority.

I'm quite sure, Bush will try to an UN resolution to save the coalition - the Netherland and Danish government are under steadily increasing pressure from their citizens (and the media).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:03 am
I also heard the stance taken by Spain; that under UN control, they would stay. What bothers me at this point is the plan by the US to establish the largest embassy in Baghdad with over 100,000 troops remaining in Iraq. That sends the wrong message not only to the Iraqis, but to our other allies. This administration has not made good decisions for improving foreign policy; we'll have to wait and see.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:07 am
Can anyone offer me evidence that the UN has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:11 am
Can anyone offer me evidence that the US has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:22 am
Scrat wrote:
Can anyone offer me evidence that the UN has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?


Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Can anyone offer me evidence that the US has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?



So, the US perhaps better shouldn't lead an UN-mission in Iraq?
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
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 01/17/2025 at 09:56:21