1
   

Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

 
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:40 pm
Quote:
Bush did not use the WMD as an excuse. That was his actual reason for invading Iraq, as he repeatedly said, and it was no more wrong than when a policeman frisks a suspect in a crime and doesn't find a gun. Not finding the gun does not make frisking the suspect wrong, nor does it mean the suspect didn't have a gun 60 seconds previously.


Unbelievable. I've never heard a more ridiculous anology in my life.

We NEVER frisked the Iraqis. We just killed them, tortured them, abused them, brainwashed them and humiliated them.

Big difference from mearly "frisking" a suspect.

I would imagine the reasons for frisking that suspect don't change. But Bush's reasons for invading Iraq changed practically on a daily basis.

Just truly unbelievable.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:42 pm
McGentrix wrote:
We do care.

You can care to.

PUBLIC DONATION INFORMATION
• The most effective way people can assist relief efforts is by making cash contributions to humanitarian organizations that are conducting relief operations. A list of humanitarian organizations that are accepting cash donations for their humanitarian emergency response efforts in Darfur, Sudan can be found at www.interaction.org.
• USAID encourages cash donations because they: allow aid professionals to procure the exact items needed (often in the affected region); reduce the burden on scarce resources (such as transportation routes, staff time, warehouse space, etc); can be transferred very quickly and without transportation costs; support the economy of the disaster-stricken region; ensure culturally, dietary, and environmentally appropriate assistance.
• More information on making donations and volunteering can be found at:
o U.S. Agency for International Development: www.usaid.gov - keyword: donations
o The Center for International Disaster Information: www.cidi.org or 703-276-1914
o InterAction: www.interaction.org -> "How You Can Help"
• Information on relief activities of the humanitarian community can be found at www.reliefweb.org


Total FY 2005 USG Humanitarian Assistance for the Darfur Emergency (to date)..........$309,176,558
Total FY 2003 - 2005 USG Humanitarian Assistance for the Darfur Emergency..............$567,622,238
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:42 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Christ, we're too busy trying to secure the oil reserves in Iraq to worry about preventing genocide in a country that means nothing to us.

You seem to be implying that we're trying to steal the oil. Am I misreading you here? If you think this, then please give an example or two.

Dookiestix wrote:
We're too busy slaughtering thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens (with the help of terrorists who are now entrenched in Iraq) to worry about the slaughter of innocent citizens in Darfur.

The insurgents are slaughtering innocent Iraqi citizens, and we are trying to stop the insurgents. In any war innocent people die, and anybody who has a different expectation is a fool, but only the insurgents attack ordinary citizens as the primary intended target.

Dookiestix wrote:
Bush and his criminal gang have done a splendid job of demonizing the U.N. Although, isn't it interesting we haven't heard much regarding the oil-for-food fiasco that neocons insist on bringing up, despite the $9 billion of unaccounted U.S. dollars meant for reconstruction in Iraq?

Please back up your assertion of criminality against the president. Repeating a false accusation over and over doesn't make it true. As to demonizing the UN, the assertion is really that the UN, like its predecessor the League of Nations, usually will not act even in very serious situations that require action.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:53 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
Bush did not use the WMD as an excuse. That was his actual reason for invading Iraq, as he repeatedly said, and it was no more wrong than when a policeman frisks a suspect in a crime and doesn't find a gun. Not finding the gun does not make frisking the suspect wrong, nor does it mean the suspect didn't have a gun 60 seconds previously.


Unbelievable. I've never heard a more ridiculous anology in my life.

We NEVER frisked the Iraqis. We just killed them, tortured them, abused them, brainwashed them and humiliated them.

Big difference from mearly "frisking" a suspect.

I would imagine the reasons for frisking that suspect don't change. But Bush's reasons for invading Iraq changed practically on a daily basis.

Just truly unbelievable.

The fact that you have learned to type the word "unbelievable" in your posts proves nothing. What we did do in Iraq is to inspect it personally from the inside to resolve the possibility that WMD and development facilities might still exist. You say we killed the Iraqis. What do you imagine happens in wars? Very few people would assert that the fact that people die in wars automatically means that wars cannot be justified. You say that we tortured the Iraqis. There has probably never been a large scale war in the history of our species in which some members of the army did not engage in improper interrogation. In our case, when we discovered it, the perpetrators were punished. Your assertion that the incidence of torture in our implementation of the war is worse than what normally happens in wars is false. Rather than continuing to go through your list of verbs, let me just say that the government of Iraq developed WMD, used, them, lied about them, concealed them, but swore to destroy them. After a dozen years, we finally lost patience and went in to see for ourselves. This was fully justified as a self-preservation measure on our part. If Hussein had not done what he did, we would not have had to react to it.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:03 pm
Quote:
You seem to be implying that we're trying to steal the oil. Am I misreading you here? If you think this, then please give an example or two.


Fine. What happened to the roughly $9 billion we would supposedly be making from selling Iraqi oil for reconstruction?

Quote:
The insurgents are slaughtering innocent Iraqi citizens, and we are trying to stop the insurgents. In any war innocent people die, and anybody who has a different expectation is a fool, but only the insurgents attack ordinary citizens as the primary intended target.


To the average Iraqi, they don't differentiate between us dropping bombs on them and terrorists blowing them up. Don't you read the papers?

Quote:
Please back up your assertion of criminality against the president. Repeating a false accusation over and over doesn't make it true. As to demonizing the UN, the assertion is really that the UN, like its predecessor the League of Nations, usually will not act even in very serious situations that require action.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Oh, my, that's hysterical. Look no further than the neocon death cult to repeat lie after lie after lie until people like you believe it to be true.

Connecting Saddam to 9/11.

Paying journalist shills to sell the administrations policies.

Running paid ads disguised as news stories to sell administration policies.

Having a male escort who works for a fake news organization asking softball questions to the pResident.

Accusing the AARP of being against our troops but for gay marriage.

Tax breaks to the wealthiest.

The horribly underfunded NCLB being deemed unconstitutional.

AWOL from the National Guard.

Which one of these are false, Brandon?

This is all beyond criminal. It's heinous. And you are mearly falling in line with the idiots who believe Bush's crap.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:15 pm
Wait, McG, I want to sum this up....

- The situation is that

Quote:
"government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis ... The vast majority of the victims of all of these violations have been from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Jebel, Aranga and other so-called 'African' tribes."

The effects of this ethnic cleansing campaign have been devastating. It is estimated that at least 200,000 people have died. More than 1.6 million people have been displaced from their homes and over 200,000 have fled across the border to Chad.


- The U.S. Congress declared that the killings in Darfur amount to "genocide".

- More than $1 billion will be needed to fund the first year of the proposed United Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan, set up to help the vast region stabilize and its people rebuild their lives after a 21-year civil war.
source


The reaction is:

Quote:
The USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (USAID/DART) for Darfur has expanded in size and technical expertise. At present, the team is composed of 19 members, including field and program officers, as well as specialists in health, security, water and sanitation, engineering, logistics, food issues, information, and protection.

source

Total Humanitarian Assistance ('03 - '05): $876,798,796

... and that the President says:

Quote:
I congratulate the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement. [...] As we celebrate this positive movement toward peace in the longstanding North-South conflict, we remember the conflict in Darfur and the suffering it causes. This comprehensive peace agreement should serve as an inspiration and model for both sides in their work toward negotiating a peaceful resolution of the Darfur conflict.



Am I correct, McG?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:23 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The point is that inspecting something that might be a lethal danger so that you don't get murdered down the road can be justifiable, even if the test result is negative.


What he's trying to say is:

Brandon9000 wrote:
No, I did not ever claim that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to fight terrorism. Show me a post in which I said that.

Who is talking about terrorism? I certainly am not.


Exactly my point. You're saying, fighting terrorism wasn't the reason for invading Iraq.
Would you say that the wish to bring freedom and democracy could maybe have been a reason for invading Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:28 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
Please back up your assertion of criminality against the president. Repeating a false accusation over and over doesn't make it true. As to demonizing the UN, the assertion is really that the UN, like its predecessor the League of Nations, usually will not act even in very serious situations that require action.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

This last part is so easy, I am going to do it first:

Dookiestix wrote:
Oh, my, that's hysterical. Look no further than the neocon death cult to repeat lie after lie after lie until people like you believe it to be true.

Is this the same as the "Bush and his criminal gang" who you accused. I will assume it is. Please state the lies you are alleging. In any event, lying is not criminal.

Dookiestix wrote:
Connecting Saddam to 9/11.

It is my impression that Bush never declared Hussein to be behind 9/11, but, in any event, it's not criminal, even if true.

Dookiestix wrote:
Paying journalist shills to sell the administrations policies.

Not criminal.

Dookiestix wrote:
Running paid ads disguised as news stories to sell administration policies.

Not criminal.

Dookiestix wrote:
Having a male escort who works for a fake news organization asking softball questions to the pResident.

Don't know too much about this one, but even if Bush were personally responsible, which I doubt, having someone as softball questions was not criminal the last time I checked.

Dookiestix wrote:
Accusing the AARP of being against our troops but for gay marriage.

Whatever you're talking about, it's not criminal.

Dookiestix wrote:
Tax breaks to the wealthiest.

I think this is a false interpretation, but let's say it were true. Do you seriously believe that giving tax breaks to the rich is criminal?

Dookiestix wrote:
The horribly underfunded NCLB being deemed unconstitutional.

Not criminal.

Dookiestix wrote:
AWOL from the National Guard.

Criminal, but not even remotely proven.

So, your assertion of criminality is utter nonsense, as usual.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:31 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The point is that inspecting something that might be a lethal danger so that you don't get murdered down the road can be justifiable, even if the test result is negative.


What he's trying to say is:

Brandon9000 wrote:
No, I did not ever claim that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to fight terrorism. Show me a post in which I said that.

Who is talking about terrorism? I certainly am not.


Exactly my point. You're saying, fighting terrorism wasn't the reason for invading Iraq.
Would you say that the wish to bring freedom and democracy could maybe have been a reason for invading Iraq?

No. Why are we even having this conversation? Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs. It was certainly nice to be able to oust Hussein and bring democracy to the Iraqis, but those are not the reasons we invaded, just fringe benefits.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:31 pm
What's criminal is the depth of the coma state into which some people have allowed their minds to enter, to avoid seeing anything negative about Bushworld.





http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs050223.gif
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:41 pm
old europe wrote:
You're saying, fighting terrorism wasn't the reason for invading Iraq.
Would you say that the wish to bring freedom and democracy could maybe have been a reason for invading Iraq?


Brandon9000 wrote:
No. Why are we even having this conversation? Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.


I just wanted to make sure. As far as I remember, I have never asked you whether or not you thought that the wish to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq was a reason for going to war.

Alright..... thanks for clarifying this, Branny!

Just to sum it up:
- the fight against terrorism wasn't the reason for going to war
- bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq wasn't the reason for going to war
- the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs was the reason to go to war
- no remaining WMD and WMD programs have been found
- 1,487 soldier have been killed, 10,968 have been wounded so far
- the cost of the war so far amounts to roughly $156,000,000,000

Brandon - would you say it was worth the cost?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:44 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
You seem to be implying that we're trying to steal the oil. Am I misreading you here? If you think this, then please give an example or two.


Fine. What happened to the roughly $9 billion we would supposedly be making from selling Iraqi oil for reconstruction?

I am not aware of this. Please provide a link. I know that we gave Iraqi ministries $9 billion to function, and that it later turned out that it could not be accounted for due to accounting problems in Iraq. Please clarify your apparent assertion that we are selling Iraqi oil and considering the proceeds to be American profit.

Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
The insurgents are slaughtering innocent Iraqi citizens, and we are trying to stop the insurgents. In any war innocent people die, and anybody who has a different expectation is a fool, but only the insurgents attack ordinary citizens as the primary intended target.


To the average Iraqi, they don't differentiate between us dropping bombs on them and terrorists blowing them up. Don't you read the papers?

There is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths, but sometimes failing, and the insurgents who regularly target non-combatants as the primary intended target. Unless you are alleging that going to war is and has always been unjustified, than you cannot use the mere fact that deaths have occurred to show that the decision to go to war in this case was wrong. People died in WW2 also. Was our decision to declare war on Germany wrong?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:46 pm
old europe wrote:
old europe wrote:
You're saying, fighting terrorism wasn't the reason for invading Iraq.
Would you say that the wish to bring freedom and democracy could maybe have been a reason for invading Iraq?


Brandon9000 wrote:
No. Why are we even having this conversation? Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.


I just wanted to make sure. As far as I remember, I have never asked you whether or not you thought that the wish to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq was a reason for going to war.

Alright..... thanks for clarifying this, Branny!

Just to sum it up:
- the fight against terrorism wasn't the reason for going to war
- bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq wasn't the reason for going to war
- the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs was the reason to go to war
- no remaining WMD and WMD programs have been found
- 1,487 soldier have been killed, 10,968 have been wounded so far
- the cost of the war so far amounts to roughly $156,000,000,000

Brandon - would you say it was worth the cost?

Unfortunately, yes. What would be the cost of WMD killing millions in the West? If there is some real chance that an awful dictator still retains some of his previously existing doomsday weapons and is making more, it simply has to be checked out.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:47 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.


Oh, and Brandon: has it ever occured to you that the reason for Bush's explaining over and over and over was to frighten people like you into such a state of paranoia that they would focus so much on the hunt for WMD so that they would forget that he has done virtually nothing to hunt down Osama bin Laden?

And, by virtually nothing I mean spending $156,000,000,000 on the war compared to all other measures taken to prevent another 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:49 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.


Oh, and Brandon: has it ever occured to you that the reason for Bush's explaining over and over and over was to frighten people like you into such a state of paranoia that they would focus so much on the hunt for WMD so that they would forget that he has done virtually nothing to hunt down Osama bin Laden?

And, by virtually nothing I mean spending $156,000,000,000 on the war compared to all other measures taken to prevent another 9/11.

If that were why he invaded Iraq (and it isn't), it would only mean that he did the right thing for the wrong reason.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:57 pm
Amen to that, snood.

Brandon: It is truly amazing what you are NOT aware of, which only reinforces the point that when the neocons lie enough and obvuscate truthful information to the American people, the neoconservative's world only becomes much smaller in their awareness of the world around them. The fact that you somehow do not have the capability to do a simple google search for the information is even more telling. It is an obvious indicator that you are not willing to do your homework. Do us liberals have to do it for you?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/013105I.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4766808,00.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/10774402.htm

Quote:
There is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths, but sometimes failing, and the insurgents who regularly target non-combatants as the primary intended target. Unless you are alleging that going to war is and has always been unjustified, than you cannot use the mere fact that deaths have occurred to show that the decision to go to war in this case was wrong. People died in WW2 also. Was our decision to declare war on Germany wrong?


Oh my. First of all, comparing Iraq to Germany is a joke. Germany was expanding throughout Europe, invading other countires, and killing millions of Jews in one of the largest genocide campaigns in world history. That would be Jews in OTHER COUNTRIES.

Secondly, if there is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths and regularly targeted non-combatants as the primary intended target, theynwhy does the average Iraqi citizen see the insurgents and American troops in roughly the same light. They are both killing innocent civilians in the crossfire. Perhaps you forgot that there are insurgents who are ONLY targeting American troops, as they feel strongly that they are fighting for the independence of their country from U.S. occupation.

Once again, you insist on painting a black and white picture regarding Iraq, when nothing can be further from the truth.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 05:08 pm
old europe wrote:
Wait, McG, I want to sum this up....

- The situation is that

Quote:
"government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis ... The vast majority of the victims of all of these violations have been from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Jebel, Aranga and other so-called 'African' tribes."

The effects of this ethnic cleansing campaign have been devastating. It is estimated that at least 200,000 people have died. More than 1.6 million people have been displaced from their homes and over 200,000 have fled across the border to Chad.


- The U.S. Congress declared that the killings in Darfur amount to "genocide".

- More than $1 billion will be needed to fund the first year of the proposed United Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan, set up to help the vast region stabilize and its people rebuild their lives after a 21-year civil war.
source


The reaction is:

Quote:
The USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (USAID/DART) for Darfur has expanded in size and technical expertise. At present, the team is composed of 19 members, including field and program officers, as well as specialists in health, security, water and sanitation, engineering, logistics, food issues, information, and protection.

source

Total Humanitarian Assistance ('03 - '05): $876,798,796

... and that the President says:

Quote:
I congratulate the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement. [...] As we celebrate this positive movement toward peace in the longstanding North-South conflict, we remember the conflict in Darfur and the suffering it causes. This comprehensive peace agreement should serve as an inspiration and model for both sides in their work toward negotiating a peaceful resolution of the Darfur conflict.



Am I correct, McG?


Well, the gist was "What is America doing about it?"

This is what America is doing. Is it enough? No. Is it more than nothing? You bet. Is it more than what 98% of the rest of the world is doing? Yup.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 05:08 pm
old europe wrote:
Just to sum it up:
- the fight against terrorism wasn't the reason for going to war
- bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq wasn't the reason for going to war
- the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs was the reason to go to war
- no remaining WMD and WMD programs have been found
- 1,487 soldier have been killed, 10,968 have been wounded so far
- the cost of the war so far amounts to roughly $156,000,000,000

Brandon - would you say it was worth the cost?


Brandon9000 wrote:
Unfortunately, yes.


Branny -

at least 16,000 Iraqi civilian have died. Would you still say it was worth the cost?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 05:09 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Amen to that, snood.

Brandon: It is truly amazing what you are NOT aware of, which only reinforces the point that when the neocons lie enough and obvuscate truthful information to the American people, the neoconservative's world only becomes much smaller in their awareness of the world around them. The fact that you somehow do not have the capability to do a simple google search for the information is even more telling. It is an obvious indicator that you are not willing to do your homework. Do us liberals have to do it for you?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/013105I.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4766808,00.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/10774402.htm

All of these links refer to exactly what I said, that $9 billion intended for Iraq ministries cannot be accounted for because of accounting problems. How on Earth does that document your assertion that we're in Iraq to take their oil?

Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
There is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths, but sometimes failing, and the insurgents who regularly target non-combatants as the primary intended target. Unless you are alleging that going to war is and has always been unjustified, than you cannot use the mere fact that deaths have occurred to show that the decision to go to war in this case was wrong. People died in WW2 also. Was our decision to declare war on Germany wrong?


Oh my. First of all, comparing Iraq to Germany is a joke. Germany was expanding throughout Europe, invading other countires, and killing millions of Jews in one of the largest genocide campaigns in world history. That would be Jews in OTHER COUNTRIES.

You can compare anything to anything validly. It doesn't imply at all that you think the things you're comparing are identical in all facets. All that is required for it to be a valid comparison is for the comparison logic to be correct. The only point of this comparison was to disprove your apparent assertion that deaths occurring in a war are some kind of evidence that the war was unjustified. The mere fact that you can give casualty figures proves nothing. People die in just wars.

Dookiestix wrote:
Secondly, if there is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths and regularly targeted non-combatants as the primary intended target, theynwhy does the average Iraqi citizen see the insurgents and American troops in roughly the same light.

First of all, you haven't proven this, and secondly you cannot prove your point by counting testimonials. Someone who goes to war, and attempts to spare non-combatants, but sometimes fails, is not in the same moral league with someone who plots to kill non-combatants deliberately.

Dookiestix wrote:
They are both killing innocent civilians in the crossfire. Perhaps you forgot that there are insurgents who are ONLY targeting American troops, as they feel strongly that they are fighting for the independence of their country from U.S. occupation.

False. What was that I heard about polling places being blown up during the elections? What did I hear about car bombs being set in public streets with no attempt whatever to limit deaths to an intended target?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 05:10 pm
Enough already. I would like to remind you guys that the thread is not about Iraq. Try sticking to the subject at hand.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Africa is a dying continent - Discussion by Pharon
Congo: The World Capital of Killing - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Notes from Africa - Discussion by dagmaraka
Tunisia From October 5 to 18, 2007 - Discussion by cicerone imposter
I hope this works out for Darfur... - Discussion by ossobuco
Let's see how well you know Africa - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Anyone know a lot about Sierra Leone? - Discussion by dlowan
Sudanese find peace? - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 08:26:31