9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 07:40 am
@McTag,
Quote:
Drones are being employed too, of course, but this is an escalation, deeply resented in most Pakistani circles.


thats kind of what I was wondering, but what about Pakistani leadership?

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 12:41 pm
Good guys are currently using machines to try to kill bad guys.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 01:00 pm
@ican711nm,

Quote:
Good guys are currently using machines to try to kill bad guys.


Good guys (the muslim Minutemen) are trying to expel the invaders from their lands, or at least be a serious thorn in their side.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 01:52 pm
@McTag,
Good guys (the Muslim Minutemen) are trying to expel the invader bad guys (the al-Qaeda and Taliban) from their lands, or at least be a serious thorn in their side.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 05:26 pm


Research links rise in Falluja birth defects and cancers to US assault

A study examining the causes of a dramatic spike in birth defects in the Iraqi city of Falluja has for the first time concluded that genetic damage could have been caused by weaponry used in US assaults that took place six years ago.

The research, which will be published next week, confirms earlier estimates revealed by the Guardian of a major, unexplained rise in cancers and chronic neural-tube, cardiac and skeletal defects in newborns. The authors found that malformations are close to 11 times higher than normal rates, and rose to unprecedented levels in the first half of this year – a period that had not been surveyed in earlier reports.

article at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/30/faulluja-birth-defects-iraq?INTCMP=SRCH

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 06:40 pm
@McTag,
Not surprising; the people of Vietnam are still suffering the after-effects of agent orange that the US military used during that war.

I never trust the US government to do the right thing. "Shock and awe" in Iraq told me all I needed to know about the criminals we have running our government.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 08:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do you feel the same way about nuclear testing during and after World War II, imposter? In other words, are you an equal opportunity blame game guy?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 10:19 pm
@okie,
I've already expressed my opinion on this matter. Why would I even bother to answer any of your questions when you ignore mine?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:37 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Quote:
Good guys are currently using machines to try to kill bad guys.
Good guys (the muslim Minutemen) are trying to expel the invaders from their lands, or at least be a serious thorn in their side.
Are these the same "good guys" that have their women and children strap bombs onto their bodies?
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 08:59 am
@okie,

Americans don't use women and children as combatants or view them as combatants? Israelis do.
Occupation of your country is a very serous matter, to be resisted by all means possible.
War is hell. Guerrilla warfare also. You shouldn't have started it.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2011 04:23 pm
The maintenance of our security will depend on whether we as well as the Israelis are successful defending ourselves against those self-proclaimed Islamists (for example, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and those that support them) who repeatedly proclaim they are murdering and will continue to murder infidels (that is, murder non-believers of Islam--murder much of humanity in general and murder many Israelis and Americans in particular), or we are unsuccessful and ultimately doomed, because of our lack of success preventing the formation of a self-proclaimed Islamist totalitarian government of humanity's posterity in general, and Israel's and America's posterity in particular.

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR,
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
wrote what constituted a prescient warning to humanity.

This warning was published in June 1949. He time-labeled his warning 1984, but his warning is a perpetual and timeless warning of humanity's propensity to contain and even court personalities in its midst that are dangerous to humanity's existence. These are the personalities in humanity's midst that seek power over what the rest of humanity thinks and what the rest of humanity does. They seek this power for no other purpose than gaining power over the rest of humanity. Possessing that power over even some of humanity deludes them into thinking they are of greater worth than those over whom they possess their power. The truth is that to hold others down, one must ALSO be down.[/quote]

The ITM (i.e., Islamic Terrorist Maniacs) are the current best example of at least some of humanity courting personalities in its midst that are dangerous to humanity's existence. These are the personalities in humanity's midst that seek power over what the rest of what humanity thinks and does. They seek this power for no other purpose than gaining power over the rest of humanity.

They seek totalitarian power over us by murdering as many of us as they think necessary to achieve their objective.

The question we should be debating is what is the best way to defend ourselves against those self-proclaimed Islamists who are seeking to foist a "big brother" totalitarian government on humanity's posterity in general, and American's and Israel's posterity in particular.

ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2011 04:36 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Americans don't use women and children as combatants or view them as combatants? Israelis do.

More accurately: Americans don't use women and children as combatants or view them as combatants!

Arabs use women and children as combatants and view them as combatants! Arabs use women and children as suicidal terrorists to mass murder civilians.

Israelis do use use women and children as combatants, but they do not use women and children as suicidal terrorists to mass murder civilians.

0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 07:36 am
Quote:
At least 60 people were killed in a suicide-bomb attack on a police recruitment center in the Iraqi town of Tikrit on Tuesday.

The latest attack targeting Iraqi security forces took place in the hometown of executed President Saddam Hussain, which is a Sunni-dominated stronghold of insurgency.

More than 100 people were injured in the worst militant attack in the country in three months.

The bomber, pretending to be one among hundreds of young candidates lined up for recruitment, blew himself up outside the center, north of Baghdad.

The high number of casualties indicate that the bomber was wearing a vest packed with as much as 50 kilograms of explosives. Most of the victims were police recruits, reports say. Deputy Governor of Salahuddin province Ahmed Abdul-Jabbar blamed the attack on al-Qaeda terrorists.

A rights group monitoring deaths in Iraq had warned last month that violence rates may remain steady in the near future, "indicative of an impassable minimum."

Iraq Body Count (IBC), which compiles its data using media reports and official information, expressed concern that "after nearly eight years, the security crisis in Iraq remains notable for its sheer relentlessness."





source

So, I wonder, what is the right answer here and in Afghanistan where there is as much if not more violence? If we leave, then the violence gets blamed on us leaving. If we stay, then the violence gets blamed on us being there. Both could be true. Keeping up surges of troops and bombs only last as long as the surge does, so what good is it other than a lot more other people getting killed ? In any event; we don't have a choice in Iraq as that article later points out.

Quote:
Despite a fall in violence since 2009, a number of occasional blasts have raised fears that sustained violence is returning to the country.

American troops, who have been supporting Iraqi forces since its invasion of the country in 2003, ended its active combat operations in August last year.

Washington has vowed that it will conform to a full withdrawal by the end of 2011, as agreed by the U.S. under the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between the two countries.

During his meeting with U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden last week, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had vowed that Iraq would "meet the challenges it faces, whether it be security, political or otherwise."


0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 11:17 am
Curveball could face jail for war-mongering, says German MP

A German politician has warned that the agent known as Curveball could go to jail after telling the Guardian that he lied about Saddam Hussein's bioweapons capability to "liberate" Iraq.

Green MP Hans-Christian Ströbele said that Curveball, a 43-year-old Iraqi dissident named Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, had arguably violated a German law that makes war-mongering illegal.

He also said that Gerhard Schröder, chancellor of Germany at the start of the Iraq war, should also reveal what he knew about the quality of evidence Curveball gave to Germany's secret service, the BND.

Under section 26 of German constitutional law, it is a criminal offence to do anything "with the intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially anything that leads to an aggressive war", said Ströbele.

"If Curveball is telling you that he lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to encourage the US to invade Iraq, then he has arguably broken the law," he said.

The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, he added, although he didn't think that would be the sentence.

The MP said he would "immediately" be tabling a question to the Bundestag, the German parliament, demanding to know whether the BND knew that Curveball was lying before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

He said he would also raise the issue at the next meeting of the select committee that monitors the work of the intelligence services. "We need to know what the BND knew about Curveball's evidence, and we also need to know what those in overall control of the BND knew – that means the then-chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, and his deputy, Frank-Walter Steinmeier," said Ströbele.

Schröder famously refused to join the "coalition of the willing" which took part in the second Iraq war.

Today, Curveball told the Guardian he was pleased to have told the truth finally, but that he was scared of the consequences. He said he had given the Guardian's phone number to his wife and brother in Sweden "just in case something happens to me".
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 11:21 am
Curveball: How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam

In a small flat in the German town of Erlangen in February 2003, an out-of-work Iraqi sat down with his wife to watch one of the world's most powerful men deliver the speech of his career on live TV.

As US secretary of state, Colin Powell gathered his notes in front of the United Nations security council, the man watching — Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, known to the west's intelligence services as "Curveball" — had more than an inkling of what was to come. He was, after all, Powell's main source, a man his German handlers had feted as a new "Deep throat" — an agent so pivotal that he could bring down a government.

As Curveball watched Powell make the US case to invade Iraq, he was hiding an admission that he has not made until now: that nearly every word he had told his interrogators from Germany's secret service, the BND, was a lie.

Everything he had said about the inner workings of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons programme was a flight of fantasy - one that, he now claims was aimed at ousting the Iraqi dictator. Janabi, a chemical engineering graduate who had worked in the Iraqi industry, says he looked on in shock as Powell's presentation revealed that the Bush administration's hawkish decisionmakers had swallowed the lot. Something else left him even more amazed; until that point he had not met a US official, let alone been interviewed by one.

"I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime," he told the Guardian in a series of interviews carried out in his native Arabic and German. "I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

His interviews with the Guardian, which took place over two days, appeared to be partly a purge of conscience, partly an attempt to justify what he did. It also seems to be a bid to resurrect his own reputation, which might help him start again in Iraq — a country that eight years later is still reeling from more than 100,000 civilian deaths and the aftermath of a savage sectarian war.

The man who pulled off one of the greatest confidence tricks in the history of modern intelligence was not easy to pin down. He arrived at a hotel in his adopted home town of Karlsruhe, looking haggard after a sleepless night spent emailing. Heavy set, with plaintive eyes, smelling strongly of cigarettes, and shuffling with nervous energy, he slunk into a chair to begin answering questions, a process he seemed very familiar with.

"Colin Powell didn' t say I was the only reason for this war," he said. "He talked about three things. First of all, uranium; secondly, al-Qaida; and thirdly, my story.

"I don't know why the other sources, for the uranium and al-Qaida, remained hidden and my name got out. I accept it, though, because I did something for my country and for me that was enough."

Since the fall of Baghdad, Curveball's identity had been sought throughout Iraq and Europe. He was finally outed in late 2007 as the main source for Powell's speech, but has tried to keep a low profile ever since, refusing — under the orders of the BND — the approaches of the few reporters who had tracked him downto Karlsruhe.

The only other time Curveball has agreed to be interviewed was in late 2007, when he told CNN that he had been set up as a fall guy by the BND and had never breathed a word to them about WMD. Last year, he called the police on a Danish documentary crew who came knocking.

Curveball claims he was granted asylum by the German government on 13 March 2000, less than six months after arriving in Germany and before he had even been asked a question about biological weapons. He emphasises this point, aware that he could be seen as a simple opportunist. "The story about the biochemical weapons had nothing to do with my asylum claim. The German state — well, the BND, or someone from Germany, have said that I told them about the chemicals, because I wanted to claim asylum. That's not true."

He says that around three weeks after he was granted asylum, a German official, whom he identified as Dr Paul, came to see him. On his application, he had said he had worked as a chemical engineer, a fact that attracted extra attention.

"He told me he needed some information about my life. He said it was very important, that Iraq had a dictator and I needed to help."

At this point, according to Curveball, he decided to let his imagination run wild. For the next six months, he sat with Paul — the BND's resident expert on weapons of mass destruction - and calling upon his knowledge of chemical engineering from university and from his work in Baghdad, he manufactured a tale of dread.

This period was the genesis of Powell's fateful speech; what Curveball told Paul became the key pillar of Powell's UN presentation — the diagrams he displayed of mobile weapons trucks that could dispense biotoxins into the wind.

"We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels," Powell said. "The source was an eyewitness — an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died."

The effect at the UN was dramatic. Here was a detailed first-hand account from an insider of the sinister and deceptive inner workings of Saddam's regime. It was tangible evidence; far more compelling than the other two elements of Powell's case for war, which seemed scant in detail and unlikely to persuade the invasion's naysayers.

Even now, Curveball seems bemused that his lies got as far as they did. He says he thought the game was up by the end of 2000. By that point, the BND had flown to Dubai to interview his former boss at Iraq's military industrial complex, Dr Basil Latif, who had told them that his former underling was a liar.

Several British intelligence officers were present at the meeting with Latif. Their German counterparts left Dubai seeing their prized source in a new light.

According to them, Curveball had claimed that Latif's son, who was then at school in Britain, was a procurer of WMD. That information was easily proven wrong by the British spooks.

The BND then returned to Germany and sent an officer to confront their source. "He says 'there (are) no trucks' and I say, ok, when (Dr Basil says) there are no trucks then (there are none)," Curveball recalled in broken English. "I did not speak to them again until (the) end of May 2002."

By the time the BND came calling again, Curveball says he had fended for himself for almost 18 months. He had been paid a monthly stipend by his handler, but had not been asked to do anything for the state.

"When he come back to me, he don't ask me (the same questions)," he says of the 2002 meetings. "He ask me, for example, the name of signs, the name of establishment, do you know this person." He admitted continuing to lie to his interrogators throughout the year.

Curveball suggests that the BND implied that his then-pregnant wife, who was at that point trying to get to Germany from Spain, would not be able to join him unless he co-operated. "He says, you work with us or your wife and child go to Morocco."

According to his account, there were at least a dozen meetings in 2002. He says none of the new round of questions dealt with a birdseed purification plant, in Djerf al-Nadaf in south-east Baghdad, that he had claimed was where Saddam's bioweapons programme was based.

This was supposed to be where the mobile trucks were loaded up. "The BND did not ask me about this project, because they knew I was not right."

But in January 2003, several weeks before Powell's speech, the interrogation returned to trucks and birdseed. "That was the first time they had talked to me about this since 2000." Curveball says it was clear to him that the drums of war were beating ever louder, but he maintains that he still thought his story about the mobile trucks had been discounted.

Then came the UN speech. He says the BND had told him that everything he had told them would stay in Germany and that he was shocked to see Powell holding up diagrams that he knew had been prepared from his fraudulent descriptions.

"So I call the person that is responsible for me. I tell him that I see what Colin says, and he says 'ok, this ist ein klein', a small problem. You come ... tomorrow, and you speak with me. (He said) you must go now from this home because this flat is very dangerous for you and for your family. From 9 April you can return."

For the next two months, Curveball claims he was in virtual lockdown, prevented by the BND from watching TV and having limited contact with anyone outside his hotel. He said he knew the war had begun from snatched conversations with strangers.

Asked about how he felt as the bodycount among of countrymen mounted and Iraq descended into chaos, Curveball shifted uncomfortably in his chair, then said: "I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – (is) killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?

"Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities."

"Saddam did not [allow] freedom in our land. There are no other political parties. You have to believe what Saddam says, and do what Saddam wants. And I don't accept that. I have to do something for my country. So I did this and I am satisfied, because there is no dictator in Iraq any more."

Curveball's reinvention as a liberator and patriot is a tough sell to many in the CIA, the BND and in the Bush administration, whose careers were terminally wounded as mystery surrounding the whereabouts of the missing bioweapons in the post-invasion months turned into the reality that there were none.

His critics — who are many and powerful — say the cost of his deception is too difficult to estimate, even now. As the US scales back its presence in Iraq it is leaving behind an unstable country, whose allegiance — after eight years of blood and treasure — may not be to the US and its allies after all. For Curveball though, it's time to reinvent himself. He has returned twice to Iraq and started a political party, winning a modest 1,700-odd votes in the general election last March. He has also written a manuscript about his past 10 years and is looking for a publisher.

In the meantime, things seem to be turning increasingly sour with the BND. The spooks helped him, his wife and two children get German citizenship in 2008. At the same time they cut off his stipend of €3,000 (£2,500) per month and told him to fend for himself.

That has proved difficult around Karlsruhe, a medium-sized university town near the French/German border where his reputation as a fantasist travels ahead of him. On the first day of our interviews, an official at the town hall told him he and his family are forbidden from leaving the country.

He now spends his days in a rented flat on the outskirts of town with a doting wife — who says she only learned of her husband's exploits three years ago — and two young children. He no longer has the Mercedes Benz that the BND had supplied him with. And he is well aware that the secret service — and his new homeland – seems to be fast tiring of him.

"I will be honest with you. I now have a lot of problems because the BND have taken away my flat, taken my mobile phone: I'm in a bad position. But if I could go back to 2000, if someone asked me, I would say the same thing because I wouldn't want that regime to continue in our country."
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2011 10:26 am
I seem to be on here by myself, but I find this curveball thing an interesting development.

Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies


Curveball doubts were shared with CIA, says ex-German foreign minister

Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 08:40 pm
@revelette,
Revelette, Thanks for the interesting links.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 09:07 pm
@ican711nm,
Actually, Nineteen Eighty Four is social commentary and not prediction. Orwell originally intended The Last MAn in Europe as his title.

From The Greatest Works of All Time:
This book had the fortune to be acclaimed by two usually opposed groups—the right wing and the left wing in the West. The former saw it as a denunciation of collectivism in all its forms while the latter (liberals, social democrats, anarchists, Trotskyites, New Leftists) hailed it as a warning against Stalinism, or Soviet-style socialism.

How did Orwell mean it? We have his own comments that the novel was not anti-socialist but against all twentieth-century ideologies tending towards authoritarianism.

Orwell's own words, from Wiki:
In the essay "Why I Write" (1946), Orwell described himself as a Democratic Socialist. Thus, in his 16 June 1949 letter to Francis Henson of the United Automobile Workers about the excerpts published in Life (25 July 1949) magazine and The New York Times Book Review (31 July 1949), Orwell said:
My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter), but as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. . . . The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.
—Collected Essays

From worldsocialism.org:
Most ridiculous of all is the use of 1984 as a yardstick to measure future developments. For example, in September 1974, the Daily Telegraph magazine produced a special issue devoted to the novel. It had in bold print on the cover: "George Orwell predicted complete oppression by 1984, and a soul-less society, without love or freedom". A recent article in New Scientist by C. L. Boltz ("1984: A Passed Future") criticises Orwell for, among other things, not foreseeing the growth of feminism and the revolt of the young. This type of explanation not only misses the point of 1984 but attempts to turn Orwell into something he never claimed to be – a prophet. On the contrary, he said:

“I do not believe that the kind of society I describe will arrive, but I believe (allowing, of course, for the fact that the book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive.” (Letter to F. A. Henson.)
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 09:09 pm
@Kara,
I agree. It's very interesting.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2011 08:16 am
Obama won't keep troops in Iraq past 2011
Quote:

The Associated Press is reporting that the Obama administration is giving up plans to keep a residual force of several thousand U.S. troops in Iraq after the withdrawal deadline at the end of the this year, citing unnamed sources.

"A senior Obama administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 active-duty soldiers attached to the U.S. Embassy," reports the AP.

The United States and Iraq have a signed agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops at the end of 2011.

In recent months, U.S. and Iraqi officials have discussed a revised agreement that would keep some American troops on the ground to train Iraqi forces.

Now that idea appears to be off, reports AP. The deal breaker: Iraq's refusal to grant American troops immunity in Iraqi courts.

"The decision to pull out fully by January will effectively end more than eight years of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, despite ongoing concerns about its security forces and the potential for instability."


Quote:
Also from Associated Press:

The decision ends months of hand-wringing by U.S. officials over whether to stick to a Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline that was set in 2008 or negotiate a new security agreement to ensure that gains made and more than 4,400 American military lives lost since March 2003 do not go to waste.

In recent months, Washington has been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces. A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday that no final decision has been reached about the U.S. training relationship with the Iraqi government.

But a senior Obama administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 active-duty soldiers attached to the U.S. Embassy.

A senior U.S. military official confirmed the departure and said the withdrawal could allow future but limited U.S. military training missions in Iraq if requested.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. Some argued the further training and U.S. help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. But others have deeply opposed any American troop presence, including Shiite militiamen who have threatened attacks on any American forces who remain. ...

The Strategic Framework Agreement allows for other forms of military cooperation besides U.S. troops on the ground. Signed at the same time as the security accord mandating the departure deadlines, it provides outlines for the U.S.-Iraqi relationship in such areas as economic, cultural and security cooperation.

Iraqi lawmakers excel at last-minute agreements. But with little wiggle room on the immunity issue and the U.S. military needing to move equipment out as soon as possible, a last-minute change between now and December 31 seems almost out of the question.

Regardless of whether U.S. troops are here or not, there will be a massive American diplomatic presence.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world, and the State Department will have offices in Basra, Irbil and Kirkuk as well as other locations around the country where contractors will train Iraqi forces on U.S. military equipment they're purchasing.

About 5,000 security contractors and personnel will be tasked with helping protect American diplomats and facilities around the country, the State Department has said.

The U.S. Embassy will still have a handful of U.S. Marines for protection and 157 U.S. military personnel in charge of facilitating weapons sales to Iraq. Those are standard functions at most American embassies around the world and would be considered part of the regular embassy staff.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 04:16:28