0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 01:31 pm
farmerman wrote:
Im just amazed that ican, even when pressed with evidence contrary to his belief, will merely evade the evidence and continue his belief. In that respect hes much like the Bush administration. Thhey are still arguing the WMD issue as if it were a fact. No skin off my nose, its just a lot of fun when most people try a new piece of data on him and he just rejects it . Thats not "intellectually honest" its something else that , politeness in mind, I cannot fully discuss. BUT, It is funny.


Farmerman, please list some of the assertions that you and others have made that you think I disagree with.

Let me help you avoid listing some assertions you might otherwise list in error.

I HAVE ALLEGED HERE:

1. WMDs were stored in Iraq in 1991.
2. WMDs are not currently stored in Iraq.
3. WMDs were not stored in Iraq in March of 2003 when we invaded Iraq.
4. Al Qaeda were knowingly and willingly harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan in October 2001 when we invaded Afghanistan.
5. Al Qaeda were knowingly and willingly harbored in Iraq by the Saddams in March 2003 when we invaded Iraq.
6. George Bush performed outstandingly in his direction of winning the wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
7. George Bush committed blunders in his direction of winning the peace in Afghanistan and Iraq.
8. None of George Bush's blunders will preclude our winning the peace in Afghanistan and Iraq.
9. George Bush has not slandered John Kerry.
10. John Kerry has slandered George Bush.
11. George Bush may have failed to meet all of his obligations to the Texas National Air Guard.
12. John Kerry slandered his fellow troops in Vietnam when he testified before the Senate's Fulbright Committee in 1972 that those fellow troops committed horrible atrocities.
13. John Kerry has repeatedly claimed the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
14. The Colin Powell UN Speech, The 9-11 Commission, and The Duelfer Report together confirm that Saddam would have presented a serious threat to our safety if he were not removed.

What kinds of evidence have you or others presented here which conflicts with my allegations?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 01:42 pm
Ican, excuse me for interrupting, but was Kerry's allegation that our troops in Vietnam shot dogs "for sport" ever documented?

Does anybody else here know? Thanks.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 01:46 pm
Since you made the list, you have to provide the proof of your statements in the list.

Since you only provided statements in this list; we can provide statements back.

In previous post, almost all those issues have been tackled to death with evidence from both sides.

I only feel like taking on two.

Quote:
12. John Kerry slandered his fellow troops in Vietnam when he testified before the Senate's Fulbright Committee in 1972 that those fellow troops committed horrible atrocities.


This one is not true. His statement to congress were from other statements that others have made already. John Kerry spoke the truth about those actrocities were committed in Vietnam.

Quote:
14. Colin Powell UN Speech, The 9-11 Commission, and the Duelfer Report together confirm that Saddam would have presented a serious threat to our safety if he were not removed.


The 9/11 commission report did not suggest in any fashion that Saddam Hussien should be removed for our safety. It merely said that Osma Bin Laden had contact with Saddam Hussien but nothing came of it. It also said that there was a terrorist camp but it was outside the control of saddam hussien.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 01:48 pm
HofT wrote:
Ican, excuse me for interrupting, but was Kerry's allegation that our troops in Vietnam shot dogs "for sport" ever documented? Does anybody else here know? Thanks.
Laughing

Rumor has it that actually dogs in Vietnam shot our troops for bones. However, that has not been documented. Laughing
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:04 pm
Clearly not a member of PETA, are you, Ican?!

Since we're on a digression here anyway, are you a pilot, and if so what do you fly that has a ceiling of 45,000 feet?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:06 pm
Revel - so his allegations about the dogs were true? That he did say it is certain - check the Congressional Record for his testimony.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:20 pm
I am aware of what John Kerry said. I have the full testimony saved to my computer from a website on Cspan.

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

Maybe you will find the following link and excerp from the article useful. Who knows.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6937.htm

The archives have hundreds of files of official U.S. military investigations of such atrocities committed by American soldiers. I've pored over those records?-which were classified for decades?-for my Columbia University dissertation and, now, this Voice article. The exact number of investigated allegations of atrocities is unknown, as is the number of such barbaric incidents that occurred but weren't investigated. Some war crimes, like the Tiger Force atrocities exposed last year by The Toledo Blade, have only come to light decades later. Others never will. But there are plentiful records to back up Kerry's 1971 testimony point by point. Following (with the names removed or abbreviated) are examples, directly from the archives:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They had personally raped"

On August 12, 1967, Specialist S., a military intelligence interrogator, "raped . . . a 13-year-old . . . female" in an interrogation hut in a P.O.W. compound. He was convicted of assault and indecent acts with a child. He served seven months and 16 days for his crimes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cut off ears"

On August 9, 1968, a seven-man patrol led by First Lieutenant S. entered Dien Tien hamlet. "Shortly thereafter, Private First Class W. was heard to shout to an unidentified person to halt. W. fired his M-16 several times, and the victim was killed. W. then dragged the body to [the lieutenant's] location. . . . Staff Sergeant B. told W. to bring back an ear or finger if he wanted to prove himself a man. W. later went back to the body and removed both ears and a finger." W. was charged with assault and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline; he was court-martialed and convicted, but he served no prison time. B. was found guilty of assault and was fined $50 a month for three months. S. was discharged from the army before action could be taken against him.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cut off heads"

On June 23, 1967, members of the 25th Infantry Division killed two enemy soldiers in combat in Binh Duong province. An army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) probe disclosed that "Staff Sergeant H. then decapitated the bodies with an axe." H. was court-martialed and found guilty of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. His grade was reduced, but he served no prison time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power"

On January 10, 1968, six Green Berets in Long Hai, South Vietnam, "applied electrical torture via field telephones to the sensitive areas of the bodies of three men and one woman . . . " Four received reprimands and "Article 15s"?-a nonjudicial punishment meted out by a commanding officer or officer in charge for minor offenses. A fifth refused to accept his Article 15, and no other action was taken against him. No action was taken against the sixth Green Beret.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cut off limbs"

A CID investigation disclosed that during late February or early March 1968 near Thanh Duc, South Vietnam, First Lieutenant L. ordered soldier K. to shoot an unidentified Vietnamese civilian. "K. shot the Vietnamese civilian, leaving him with wounds in the chest and stomach. Soldier B., acting on orders from L., returned to the scene and killed the Vietnamese civilian, and an unidentified medic severed the Vietnamese civilian's left arm." No punishment was meted out because none of the "identified perpetrators" was found to be on active duty at the time of the June 1971 investigation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blown up bodies"

On February 14, 1969, Platoon Sergeant B. and Specialist R., on a reconnaissance patrol in Binh Dinh province, "came upon three Vietnamese males . . . whom they detained and then shot at close range using M-16 automatic fire. B. then arranged the bodies on the ground so that their heads were close together. A fragmentation grenade was dropped next to the heads of the bodies." B. was court-martialed, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to a reduction in grade and a fine of $97 per month for six months?-after which time he re-enlisted. R. was court-martialed and found not guilty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan"

While a U.S. "helicopter hunter-killer team . . . was on a recon mission in Cambodia," its members fired rockets at buildings and "engaged various targets [in a small village] with machine-gun fire. Gunship preparatory fire preceded the landing of a South Vietnamese army platoon, which had been diverted from another mission. A U.S. captain accompanied the platoon on the ground in violation of standing orders. The South Vietnamese troops, reconnoitering by fire, did not search bunkers for enemy forces, nor were enemy weapons found. . . . Civilian casualties were estimated at eight dead, including two children, 15 wounded, and three or four structures destroyed. There is no evidence that the wounded were provided medical treatment by either U.S. or South Vietnamese forces. . . . Members of the South Vietnamese platoon returned to the aircraft with large quantities of civilian property. . . . The incident was neither properly investigated nor reported initially." Letters of reprimand were issued to a lieutenant colonel and a major. The captain received a letter of reprimand.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry made it clear when he testified more than three decades ago that what he told the Senate was the cumulative testimony of well over 100 "honorably discharged and many very highly decorated" Vietnam vets who gathered in Detroit in early 1971. Calling their gathering the Winter Soldier Investigation, they were trying to raise awareness of the type of war they said America was waging in Southeast Asia. They were trying to demonstrate that the shocking My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, of 567 civilians in a Vietnamese village?-a barbarism unknown to the American public until late 1969?-was not an isolated incident in which rogue troops went berserk, but simply one of many U.S.-perpetrated atrocities.

All these years later, neither the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) nor the media feeding their allegations about Kerry's supposedly "false 'war crimes' charges" even broaches the subject of Vietnamese suffering, let alone talk about Kerry's exposition of large-scale atrocities, such as free-fire zones and bombardment of villages?-gross violations of international law cannot simply be denied or explained away.

Having worked for nearly five years doing research on post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam vets, I understand the intense trauma experienced by many of them. However, having also spent years working with U.S. government records of investigations into atrocities committed against the Vietnamese by U.S. soldiers, it is patently clear which country suffered more as a result of the war, and it isn't the U.S., which tragically lost just over 58,000 soldiers. It's Vietnam. Perhaps as many as 2 million Vietnamese civilians died during the war, and who can even guess at the number wounded?-physically and psychologically.

On its website, the SBVT tries to debunk the Winter Soldier Investigation by using the same rhetoric that apologists for the Vietnam War have long employed: They paint the vets who attended the Detroit meeting as a parade of fake veterans offering false testimony. "None of the Winter Soldier 'witnesses' Kerry cited in his Senate testimony less than three months later were willing to sign affidavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates, and places that would allow their claims to be tested," the SBVT claims. "Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators."

While numerous authors have repeatedly advanced such assertions, U.S. military documents tell a radically different story. According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations that, in the eyes of U.S. Army investigators, "merited further inquiry." As of March 1972, the army's CID noted that of the 46 allegations, "only 43 complainants have been identified" by investigators. "Only" 43 of 46? That means at least 93 percent of the veterans surveyed were real, not fake. Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews?-hardly the "few" asserted by SBVT.

Moreover, as Gerald Nicosia has noted in his mammoth tome Home to War, "A complete transcript of the Winter Soldier testimony was sent to the Pentagon, and the military never refuted a word of it."

The assertion that the vets proved uncooperative and refused to provide useful, identifiable information has also been a typical device used to refute the WSI. In this case, the Winter Soldiers themselves played directly into the hands of their detractors by trying to have it both ways: They wanted to expose atrocities as a product of command policy while denying individual soldiers' responsibility in committing the crimes.

At the WSI, veteran after veteran told of brutal military tactics, like burning villages and establishing free-fire zones. They offered blunt, graphic, and often horrific accounts of murder, rape, torture, mutilation, and indiscriminate violence. But when it came to perpetrators, the soldiers did not name names. From the outset, they made it clear that they would not allow their testimony to be used to, as they put it, scapegoat individual G.I.'s and low-ranking officers when, they said, it was the war's managers?-America's political and military leadership?-who were ultimately to blame for the atrocities. Because of this stance, some veterans told investigators after the WSI that they would not offer any further testimony or would only speak before Congress or a congressional committee. This stance became a convenient way for the military to stop work on cases and ignore the charges the anti-war vets had made.

But in fact?-and despite later claims to the contrary by their pro-war critics?-most of the Winter Soldier participants had publicly given accounts with their own names, unit identifications, dates of service, and sometimes rather detailed descriptions of locations?-namely, all the information needed to proceed with investigations. In practically all the specific Winter Soldier cases, such probes were never done.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)











Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest

Fill out your emailaddress
to receive our newsletter!

SubscribeUnsubscribe
Powered by YourMailinglistProvider.com
Information Clearing House

Daily News Headlines Digest


HOME

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:26 pm
Revel - thank you, but my question was very specific and concerned one allegation only:

".....shot cattle and dogs for fun..."

Did that really happen? Thank you.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:30 pm
Quote:
".....shot cattle and dogs for fun..."

Did that really happen? Thank you.


"Moreover, as Gerald Nicosia has noted in his mammoth tome Home to War, "A complete transcript of the Winter Soldier testimony was sent to the Pentagon, and the military never refuted a word of it."

What part of "never refuted a word of it" do you not understand?

Thank you.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:34 pm
Omission and commission aren't the same thing, Revel. Not denying a long list isn't the same as confirming the validity of each individual item on the list.

So in plain English, you just don't know the answer to my question. Fine.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:46 pm
revel wrote:
Since you made the list, you have to provide the proof of your statements in the list.
I didn't ask for proof, so I won't provide proof. I did ask for kinds of evidence so that's what I will provide, kinds of evidence. Besides I've repeatedly provided here evidence, excerpted from these kinds of vidence, for my allegations.

Powell: www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm
Commission: www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Duelfer: www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

revel wrote:
Since you only provided statements in this list; we can provide statements back.
Laughing Be my quest! But you don't really need your or anyone else's justification. Laughing However, this statement of yours leads me to question your ability to reason logically. Laughing

revel wrote:
In previous post, almost all those issues have been tackled to death with evidence from both sides.
So why ask for more issue tackling? Laughing

revel wrote:
Quote:
12. John Kerry slandered his fellow troops in Vietnam when he testified before the Senate's Fulbright Committee in 1972 that those fellow troops committed horrible atrocities.


This one is not true. His statement to congress were from other statements that others have made already. John Kerry spoke the truth about those actrocities were committed in Vietnam.


Many of the others you mentioned have either admitted they were never in Vietnam up to 1972 or have explicitly confessed in public on C-Span that they lied. However, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is John Kerry testified falsely before the Fullbright Committee in 1972 that his fellow troops committed horrible atrocities. That testimony was slander regardless of whose falsities on wich he was basing his testimony. Read "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi to obtain explicit references to specific evidence. Oh yes, in an interview I watched on ABC, Kerry stated that his accusations before the committee were "a little over the top." Rolling Eyes

revel wrote:
Quote:
14. Colin Powell UN Speech, The 9-11 Commission, and the Duelfer Report together confirm that Saddam would have presented a serious threat to our safety if he were not removed.


The 9/11 commission report did not suggest in any fashion that Saddam Hussien should be removed for our safety. It merely said that Osma Bin Laden had contact with Saddam Hussien but nothing came of it. It also said that there was a terrorist camp but it was outside the control of saddam hussien.


I've supplied the pertinent excerpts here many times that contradict your allegations. See my links posted in this post above. Check them out for yourself. For some examples that contradict your allegations, see Chapters 2.4, and 2.5. of the Commissions report. Al Qaeda were harbored in Iraq at the time of our invasion and Saddam knew about it. According to Powell speech Saddam was told twice in 2002 to evict al Qaeda or else. Of course, he's was told a third time by Powell's speech to the UN, February 2003.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:00 pm
HofT wrote:
Clearly not a member of PETA, are you, Ican?!

Since we're on a digression here anyway, are you a pilot, and if so what do you fly that has a ceiling of 45,000 feet?
Yes, I am a pilot!
I flew a Lear 25 in our charter business. Currently, I provide pilot services and flight instruction in other people's airplanes, some of which are stored in my hangar.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:01 pm
HofT wrote:
Omission and commission aren't the same thing, Revel. Not denying a long list isn't the same as confirming the validity of each individual item on the list.

So in plain English, you just don't know the answer to my question. Fine.


If those things were not true, Pentagon (or whoever) would have delighted in charging John Kerry with Perjury because he was under oath.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:05 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Since you made the list, you have to provide the proof of your statements in the list.
I didn't ask for proof, so I won't provide proof. I did ask for kinds of evidence so that's what I will provide, kinds of evidence. Besides I've repeatedly provided here evidence, excerpted from these kinds of vidence, for my allegations.

Powell: www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm
Commission: www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Duelfer: www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

revel wrote:
Since you only provided statements in this list; we can provide statements back.
Laughing Be my quest! But you don't really need your or anyone else's justification. Laughing However, this statement of yours leads me to question your ability to reason logically. Laughing

revel wrote:
In previous post, almost all those issues have been tackled to death with evidence from both sides.
So why ask for more issue tackling? Laughing

revel wrote:
Quote:
12. John Kerry slandered his fellow troops in Vietnam when he testified before the Senate's Fulbright Committee in 1972 that those fellow troops committed horrible atrocities.


This one is not true. His statement to congress were from other statements that others have made already. John Kerry spoke the truth about those actrocities were committed in Vietnam.


Many of the others you mentioned have either admitted they were never in Vietnam up to 1972 or have explicitly confessed in public on C-Span that they lied. However, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is John Kerry testified falsely before the Fullbright Committee in 1972 that his fellow troops committed horrible atrocities. That testimony was slander regardless of whose falsities on wich he was basing his testimony. Read "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi to obtain explicit references to specific evidence. Oh yes, in an interview I watched on ABC, Kerry stated that his accusations before the committee were "a little over the top." Rolling Eyes

revel wrote:
Quote:
14. Colin Powell UN Speech, The 9-11 Commission, and the Duelfer Report together confirm that Saddam would have presented a serious threat to our safety if he were not removed.


The 9/11 commission report did not suggest in any fashion that Saddam Hussien should be removed for our safety. It merely said that Osma Bin Laden had contact with Saddam Hussien but nothing came of it. It also said that there was a terrorist camp but it was outside the control of saddam hussien.


I've supplied the pertinent excerpts here many times that contradict your allegations. See my links posted in this post above. Check them out for yourself. For some examples that contradict your allegations, see Chapters 2.4, and 2.5. of the Commissions report. Al Qaeda were harbored in Iraq at the time of our invasion and Saddam knew about it. According to Powell speech Saddam was told twice in 2002 to evict al Qaeda or else. Of course, he's was told a third time by Powell's speech to the UN, February 2003.


I feel that I don't need to restate my position as I don't feel this post is correct.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:16 pm
revel wrote:
I feel that I don't need to restate my position as I don't feel this post is correct.


What specific links to the evidence you provided that support your allegation that Kerry did not slander his fellow troops, do you recommend for me to verify your evidence?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:23 pm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6937.htm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:35 pm
It strikes me in the litany of sins posted by Revel, that these were apparently known already to the military by the time John Kerry testified about them, and those committing the sins were prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. This in itself would confirm 1) that these were not common occurrences and were in fact rare anomalies among our servicemen and 2) they were in no way condoned or tolerated by the military.

I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of U.S. service personnel served in Vietnam - I know 55,000 plus died. John Kerry's testimony suggested the atrocities were common and he did not say he had not committed these or that the men he served with served honorably and bravely.

Moreover the way in which he did gave aid and comfort to the enemy. It is that, more than anything else, for which most of his fellow servicemen hold him in contempt.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:41 pm


Quote:
Swift Boat Swill
From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocities

by Nicholas Turse

09/21/04 "Village Voice" --

...

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)



This is the same site you previously referenced. I could not find there any link I could use to verify the contents of Turse's article. Do you have another recommendation?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 04:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
... he did gave aid and comfort to the enemy. It is that, more than anything else, for which most of his fellow servicemen hold him in contempt.


As usual your comments are right on the mark.

From Revel's link [my emhasis added]:
Quote:
Contrary to what those critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have implied, Kerry was speaking on behalf of many soldiers when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, and said this:

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


Kerry alleged he was speaking on behalf of "many soldiers". That many has not been shown to be even one-hundredth of one percent. The bold face statement converts this Kerry statement from an accusation against particular soldiers to a general accusation against all the troops in Vietnam. It implies the inclusion of those in his Swift Boat brigade plus his superior officers to the highest levels. Even if I were to assume it true that the specific atrocities about which Kerry spoke were true, lacking any evidence to the contrary, Kerry's bold face statement is a bold face falsification of the general behavior of our troops. In that regard, it constitutes a terrible slander.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 05:20 pm
Thanks for the confirm, Ican. Was the 45,000 ft ceiling at the time the plane was known as 25BGF?

Separately, aren't you a fan of Boyd?
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 © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/13/2026 at 06:54:01