| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2007 : 04:10:06 AM
|
That's unrelated, Gristle. What I meant is that being a liberal I'm more likely to be called (or my arguments) commie or Stalinist rather than "nazi". Hence the idea of extending the "ban".
As for zombiewhacker arguments, he definitely has a point when he says people care more about the mistakes of democratically elect leaders than of those from dictators. True. But he forgets to mention there are at least two reasons for that. One being that dictators don't care much about protests, much less those held outside their countries. They have absolute power and will do whatever they want. Whereas polititians in a democracy know well that sooner or later they're going to answer from their actions, and public opinion is an important judge.
The second reason is that democratically elected polititians are supposed to be less likely to indulge in those "mistakes" or alleged crimes. Which explains why people are angrier at, let's say Bush, than to Castro. Castro? He's a communist dictator, accusations of human rights vilations practically write themselves alone. But Bush? He's the president of one of the most important democracies in the world, and therefore to the accusations of human rights violations (Abhu Graib, Guantanamo, etc.) you have to add that he is an hypocrite and somebody who has turned a democracy, which by definition is the form of government most respectful towards human rights, into a state that tortures suspects on a regular basis. |
 |
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 09:23:47 AM
|
As far as Abu Ghraib, I'm not going to hold Bush responsible for the actions of a few useless dirtbag soldiers from the West Virginia National Guard and the officers who were not doing their job and preventing that sort of embarassing stuff from happening.
I seem to recall some German soldiers in the former Yugoslavia a couple of years ago engaging in some bizarre Nazi-like activity. I do not recall world opinion shifting the blame for that to the German Prime Minister. I also remember a British soldier doing some pretty bad stuff in Iraq a few years back. Rape or torture, can't remember. The blame was not shifted to Blair.
As far as protestors not focusing their efforts on dictators because they get fewer results that way, I'm not really buying it.
All too often, I see actual sympathy from Western protestors towards third world countries and their dictators. Such as when Western liberals traveled to Iraq to serve as "human shields" for Saddam's regime.
Or support for Vietnamese communists on our colleges during Vietnam.
It is a curious way of thinking that I don't pretend to totally understand, but here's what I think.
Being critical of your own culture of people makes such protestors feel morally righteous. Somewhere back in the 1960s, siding with 3rd world people who were in opposition to freedom, capitalism, and individualism became the popular way for Western protestors to voice their contempt for their own societies and people.
So, the well-heeled have dinner with Castro. Certain members of Congress write "Dear Commandante" letters to the Sandinistas and cover up or gloss over Soviet plans to build a bomber base in Grenada. Ron Dellums gives the one-handed "communist salute" at his acceptance ceremony to the U.S. Congress.
Now, there are right-wing dictators that America and the American Right have supported over the years and especially during the Cold War. There is no sense in denying that.
The difference between the Right and the Left (I'm aligning myself Right) is that we do not celebrate "Our sons of bitches". I think Buckley coined that phrase. We may at times support a Saddam over an Ayatollah, but we DO NOT sing their praises in the streets, want to have dinner with them, or make romanticized movies about them (such as The Motorcycle Diaries). They are at best a necessary evil in a complicated world. You will not see any of us walking around in an Augusto Pinochet t-shirt.
I've seen plenty of Che Guevarra t-shirts around. The architect of Cuba's gulags where political dissidents and homosexuals are arbitrarily imprisoned. I've seen and read many Hollywood elites praising Castro, having dinner with him, etc. I believe there is even a book out there written by Noam Chomsky in the early 1970s where he denied what was happening in Cambodia's "killing fields", but also added that if it was happening, there is probably a justifiable reason for it.
That is the difference between the Right and Left.
|
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 11:48:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Carrier
As far as Abu Ghraib, I'm not going to hold Bush responsible for the actions of a few useless dirtbag soldiers from the West Virginia National Guard and the officers who were not doing their job and preventing that sort of embarassing stuff from happening.
Now I'm the one not buying that. In other circumstances I could believe Abhu Graib to be an isolate case, but there are other actions taken by this administration (Guantanamo, extradition of suspects to countries were torture is legal, the case of illegal transportation and inprisonement of detainees in Europe) that seem to hint that the U.S.A. have relaxed their observation of human rights. Members of this administration are also quite evasive when asked about this issues in public.
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Carrier
I seem to recall some German soldiers in the former Yugoslavia a couple of years ago engaging in some bizarre Nazi-like activity. I do not recall world opinion shifting the blame for that to the German Prime Minister. I also remember a British soldier doing some pretty bad stuff in Iraq a few years back. Rape or torture, can't remember. The blame was not shifted to Blair.
While equally outrageous, neither Germany nor the UK present themselves as the champions of democracy or observation of human rights. That most recent American administrations do that adds insult to injury when cases like this one surface, and is easily one of the causes why their actions are always subject to more criticism than other countries'.
Still, part of the blame of such situations is the unpopularity of the present U.S. administration. Clinton had his own share of international fiascos (the intervention in Somalia that resulted in the battle of Mogadiscio, the bombing of Sudan's alleged terrorist instalations), but nobody doubted his intentions were good. That certainly is not the case with George W. Bush. That he tried to form an international coalition to invade Iraq based on false accusations (Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda, the mass destruction weapons that are still to be found) and his failure to pacify the country after the occupation have seriously undermined any credit he may have.
I'll admit, however, that the current unpopularity of the U.S.A. in the rest of the world means every incident atributable to Americans is inmediately attributed to their President / administration and that such a thing is not entirely fair.
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Carrier
Being critical of your own culture of people makes such protestors feel morally righteous. Somewhere back in the 1960s, siding with 3rd world people who were in opposition to freedom, capitalism, and individualism became the popular way for Western protestors to voice their contempt for their own societies and people.
While I think you make several valid points in your bashing of leftists that support foreign dictatorship (my own country has a rather ambivalent attitude towards Cuba), I think there's nothing wrong in criticising your own society. After all, who knows it better than you? And how can you start criticising other societies without acknowledging the flaws in your own first? And las but not least, aren't you supposed to have the right to do so?
|
Edited by - Neville on 07/04/2007 11:51:47 AM |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 12:13:03 PM
|
Neville, respectfully, you're wrong on almost every point. First of all, your argument that Bush catches more heat because he heads a democracy doesn't wash because where are all the anti-Putin protests? Russia was on the road to becoming a democracy when he hijacked it and started implementing his own formula for Lenin 2.0. Strange how international protests failed to materialize on that score.
France is a democracy, far more so than Russia. So when Jacques Chirac recently invaded the Ivory Coast, a sovereign country, where was the global outrage? Not only wasn't there any, the UN passed a resolution after the fact supporting France's occupation of the I.C.
The notion that "polititians in a democracy know well that sooner or later they're going to answer for their actions" also doesn't scan. French citizens do not get to vote in US elections. Neither do the Italians, the Spanish, the Germans. Yet you protest anyway. Why? Our government doesn't answer to you any more than yours answers to us. Further, if you honestly believe that any world leader is actually going to do a complete about-face in policy because a few Marxists in Belgium waved some placards, well, then, I have a bridge on the River Kwai to sell you.
Also the notion that people have a right to be angrier at elected democrats than dictators is a logic so tortured I scarce know how to dissect it. It's basically like saying, "I'm angrier at the good parent who spanks his child occasionally than I am at the child molester, because after all we have no expectations of child molesters. Therefore when Mr. Jones paddles his son I will march in the streets with thousands of others and burn Mr. Jones in effigy and hold protest signs comparing him to the KKK and Hitler. But I will remain stone silent about Mr. Smith down the street and his activities, because, well, gee-whillikers, what good's that gonna do?"
Also Bush, however incompetent he has proven himself as President (and he is a bumbler numero uno), does not have people tortured on a regular basis. Sorry, but you've swallowed a lot of propaganda. In rare instances some detainees are water-boarded (a procedure many CIA officers themselves are expected to undergo as part of their training. Ditto our Navy SEALS.) But our government does not have people beaten, whipped, burned, power-drilled, disembowled, or amputated, which is what countries that do condone torture practice on a regular basis.
As Citizen Carrier points out, the boobs at Abu Ghraib were not acting on sealed orders from Bush. They were loose cannons, nothing more. (A few officers in the chain of command at A.G. probably skated, and obviously they should have paid the price along with their subodinates. But to pin the blame on the White House for what happened is crazy.)
Interestingly, a few years back insurgents outside the prison walls launched a mortar attack on Abu Ghraib, killing some twenty to twenty-five prisoners trapped inside. There was no world protest, no outrage over the attack, no candlelight vigils. The incident was completely ignored. Yet when a dozen inmates are forced to form a naked pyramid, watch two people having sex (AAAAAAAAUGH!), or face a mean, snarling dog that's barking at them, the international outrage needle hit eleven. Which proves deep down that most of these protesters are full of... um... Jabootu. (Jabootu is now officially our "Smurf" word.) In all likelihood, most of the critics screaming the loudest don't really care about the detainees at all, they're just angry at the US for other reasons, and they're using incidents like Abu Ghraib as an excuse.
As far as Gitmo is concerned, it is my understanding that some abuses did occur initially, but then the administration started cracking down and that was the end of it. Today Gitmo is a model detention center, with strict guidelines for all its personnel. People are not tortured at Gitmo. That's... Jabootu! |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 07/04/2007 12:56:47 PM |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 12:47:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville
In other circumstances I could believe Abhu Graib to be an isolate case, but there are other actions taken by this administration (Guantanamo, extradition of suspects to countries were torture is legal, the case of illegal transportation and inprisonement of detainees in Europe)...
Non-sequiturs. CC's argument again, and mine, is that when the Abu Ghraib boobs started screwing around, they were acting on their own initiative. You say, "What about Gitmo?" Irrelevant. You might as well say "What about Mai Lai?" Where is your evidence that these, ahem, soldiers were following direct orders from the Oval Office?
quote:
While equally outrageous, neither Germany nor the UK present themselves as the champions of democracy or observation of human rights.
They don't? Reeeealllly?!!! So the German and UK governments never speak out against human rights violations around the world? Never speak out in favor of democracy? Never condemn dictators?
Jabootu! (Geshundeit!) If people in your part of the world are truly averse to judging other countries for their actions, you wouldn't be condemning the US now.
quote:
Still, part of the blame of such situations is the unpopularity of the present U.S. administration. Clinton had his own share of international fiascos (the intervention in Somalia that resulted in the battle of Mogadiscio, the bombing of Sudan's alleged terrorist instalations), but nobody doubted his intentions were good.
Really, Neville, at this point you've taken the last flying ship to Never-Never Land. First, it was Bush the 41st who sent troops to save starving Somalis, not Clinton. It was Clinton who pulled troops out of Somalia and left millions to die. (Clinton similarly screwed the Rwandans.) He only bombed Bosnia in 2004 because his adviors told him he needed to do it in order to boost his chances of being reelected. Sudan was a distraction from Monica-gate.
And need I remind you, since you brought up rendition (the policy of shipping prisoners to countries that condone torture), that was also Clinton's policy. Rendition did not exist until Clinton came into power. The policy's primary architects were Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke, both Clinton flunkies. To condemn Bush for a policy that Clinton initated and then paint a halo over Clinton's head is simply mind-boggling.
quote:
That certainly is not the case with George W. Bush. That he tried to form an international coalition to invade Iraq based on false accusations (Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda, the mass destruction weapons that are still to be found) and his failure to pacify the country after the occupation have seriously undermined any credit he may have.
And why exactly is Bush not given the benefit of the doubt that he has acted out of good intentions? You fail to specify. Just for the record, a lot of those "false accusations" came not from CIA intelligence but from Europe and the Middle East. The infamous Curveball was a German intelligence asset. Our CIA never interviewed Curveball. Germany wouldn't allow it. It was Czech intelligence that told us that Mohammad Atta was in secret meetings with the Iraqi government. It was the French and Israeli intelligence services that were keeping us up to "speed" on Saddam's WMD programs. So when it turns out most of the free world's intelligence agencies sold us a bill of goods, that casts doubt on Bush's good intentions?
|
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 07/04/2007 12:59:41 PM |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 2:22:50 PM
|
Uh, Clinton didn't order bombing of Bosnia. He did order the bombing of Yugoslavia after the Radak incident where Yugoslav forces were accused of an atrocity. The bombing campaign didn't occur until 1999, long after Clinton's re-election campaign. American conservatives have long accused Clinton of a "wag the dog" strategy during the bombing campaign, accusing him of starting this war to distract people from the Lewinski affair. Frankly this reminds me of 9/11 conspiracy theories that blame Bush for the attacks on NY and the Pentagon. Clinton was a sleazbag but he wasn't as evil as his opponents try to portray him. I wonder, did these critics favor giving Milisovic a free hand in Kosovo?
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 2:37:46 PM
|
Clinton's attack on Sudan was in response to the al Qaeda bobming of US embassies in Africa in 1998. Most American conservative critiques of this operation were in regard to it being too tepid a response rather than it being a distraction from the Lewisnki affair.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 2:53:06 PM
|
Oh, I see that Clinton did order a small bombing campaign in Bosnia in 1995. Still, considering that it occured a full year before the election of 1996 it's a stretch to accuse Clinton of launching the campaign merely to get re-elected.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 3:35:26 PM
|
(reading zombiewhacker's answers)
What's this, the eenquisition?
Hey, man, I'm just telling you how people in my country feel about the U.S.A., I'm not an historian nor a sociologist. I don't even know where to start... looks like you've taken almost every word I wrote and twist it clockwise then counter - clockwise.
a) Starting with the stuff that has caught my attention first, how can you say this administration has been misled to invade Iraq? It was this administration the one who spoke of evidence while almost every other nations were left scratching their heads. I heard Bush Jr. speaking of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and about weapons of mass destruction, not some French or German people. And assuming the American agencies were given bad intel, they should know quite well how to handle it. They could have listened, for instance, to what U.N. inspectors had to say about the matter instead. On the other hand, events like the Plame affair hint that the Bush administration's attitude at the moment was rather different: jettison everything that doesn't justify the invasion, keep whatever backs it up.
b) If the U.S. government is not torturing suspects (as almost every European media has been mentioning for years without being sued), maybe they should be more transparent about the way they treat detainees. And you know, maybe deny the whole torture stuff. Meanwhile, I'll rather believe what Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have to say about the matter than any other view on the subject.
c) (After cheking some sources) The U.S. intervention in Somalia did indeed start under George H. W. Bush mandate in 1992, I stand corrected. However, the whole "battle of Mogadiscio" fiasco (1993) happened under Clinton's administration, and at that point I was speaking of Clinton's fiascos regarding international policy. That was one of them.
d) The answer to the question "why doesn't Europe believe in George W. Bush's good intentions can be extrapolated from my previous answers.
|
Edited by - Neville on 07/04/2007 3:43:02 PM |
|
|
|
MikeC
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 3:59:28 PM
|
Man, this thread SUX!!!!
You're all noobz!!!!!!
MikeC, Oh, I'm sorry: I thought this was ABUSE! |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 4:15:19 PM
|
Uh, zombie, did you somehow miss the giant protests that take place every time there's a G-8 summit? They're very much directed at Putin. The fact that they're directed at other world leaders as well doesn't change that fact. But the G-8 is probably the most significant way in which Russia impacts the rest of the world; America is (as you may have heard) the world's remaining superpower. EVERYONE is affected by the US's policies, which currently include invading sovereign countries pre-emptively, or on trumped-up intelligence. That tends to make other countries angry, and leads to protests. But it's pretty disingenuous to put everything on the shoulders of protesters, as if that was the only form of political criticism in existence. Some people cling to the naive belief that, as head of a democracy, Bush is susceptible to the will of the people, and thus protests will have an effect. I don't think they will, because I think Bush is every bit as bad as Putin--he just happens to run a country where the law and the people won't let him get away with as much. A protest outside Russia would mean less than nothing to Putin, and everyone knows it. Therefore, you don't see as many non-Russian anti-Putin protests. It's not rocket science.
As for Gitmo, I hardly know where to begin. Well, OK, how about here? [url]http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1348[/url] Or how about the common sense argument that, for all their specific denials, the current crop of right-wingers have bent over backwards to defend the idea of torture in the abstract? Scalia just launched into a demented defense of Jack Bauer at a legal panel, for Christ's sake.
But I don't know why I'm bothering, honestly. You 28% have proven time and again that this argument is a series of obsfucations and justifications to you. You like torture just fine (hey, why don't I come over to your house and waterboard you for a while, zombie? Since it's no big deal and all), and you don't believe in the rule of law except inasmuchas it benefits yourself. I'm sure you've got some elaborate defense for why Bush just pardoned--excuse me, commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby. It doesn't matter what is done, as long as it's in service to a right-wing agenda. And you think that, years after it's been firmly established, grudgingly acknowledging that Bush is a bungler (but he had good intentions!) is enough to show how non-partisan you are.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
Gristle McThornbody
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
Germany
186 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 4:42:38 PM
|
This flame thread is getting too one-tracked. So I'm just going to don my asbestos pj's and say that I enjoyed Independence Day the first time I watched it. I caveat that statement by saying I had been drinking and was looking specifically for mindless entertainment.
And as a side note to Neville: During the leadup to the last US presidential election, Amnesty International as much as admitted to exagerrating claims of abuses they had made against the US government, stating that the claims were useful as a fundraising measure. So if you want to believe them before believing other sources, that's your right. But you should know that they're whores for contributions who have sold their integrity down the river in order to get your Euros.
"Hi, I'm Bob Evil!" |
Edited by - Gristle McThornbody on 07/04/2007 4:57:15 PM |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 8:05:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ericb
Uh, Clinton didn't order bombing of Bosnia. He did order the bombing of Yugoslavia after the Radak incident where Yugoslav forces were accused of an atrocity. The bombing campaign didn't occur until 1999, long after Clinton's re-election campaign.
Wrong. (As you later admit.)
quote:
Frankly this reminds me of 9/11 conspiracy theories that blame Bush for the attacks on NY and the Pentagon. Clinton was a sleazbag but he wasn't as evil as his opponents try to portray him.
Former Clinton strategist Dick Morris, who was a top advisor during Clinton's reelection campaign, has publicly stated that Clinton was initially averse to bombing Bosnia. Morris convinced Clinton that if he wanted to be re-elected, he needed to get tough on Bosnia. Clinton, finally persuaded, launched a bombing campaign. Now this is what Clinton's own former campaign advisor has stated. If you have inside information painting Morris out to be a liar on this issue, by all means present it. I'd be interested to hear it. |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 8:09:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ericb
Clinton's attack on Sudan was in response to the al Qaeda bobming of US embassies in Africa in 1998.
You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But this was the only military action Clinton took against al Qaeda when he was in office, and coincidentally it took place during the Lewinsky affair. If Clinton was so gung ho about fighting al Qaeda, why didn't he respond to, for example, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? Or, for that matter, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? Or that attempted bombing on the UN Building and the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, also in 1993?
Perhaps there's an outside chance you're right, that Clinton was sincere in his actions when he attacked Sudan. But given that virutally every other attack and attempted attack was greeted by the Clinton White House with a collective shrug, what has to ask what was it that pushed him to bomb Sudan in 1998... if NOT Monicagate? |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 8:37:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville
a) Starting with the stuff that has caught my attention first, how can you say this administration has been misled to invade Iraq? It was this administration the one who spoke of evidence while almost every other nations were left scratching their heads.
Sorry, Neville, wrong. I just told you, Curveball was German intelligence asset, the Atta-Iraq connection came from Czech intelligence. Chirac's own intelligence apparatus believed that Saddam's WMD program was marching full straight ahead. Ditto the Israel intelligence. The fact that this is news to you indicates how poorly informed many Europeans are about the pre-war intelligence.
quote:
I heard Bush Jr. speaking of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and about weapons of mass destruction, not some French or German people.
I said it was Czech intelligence. Incidentally, the Czech stand by their intelligence rightly or wrongly. They claim that there was a secret meeting in Germany between Atta and representatives of Saddam Hussein. Now maybe this story is total baloney, but the US wasn't alone in believing it.
quote:
And assuming the American agencies were given bad intel, they should know quite well how to handle it.
Um... huh?
quote:
On the other hand, events like the Plame affair hint that the Bush administration's attitude at the moment was rather different: jettison everything that doesn't justify the invasion, keep whatever backs it up.
Joseph Wilson was dispatched to Niger, where he learned from speaking to officials there that an Iraqi ambassador named Wissam al-Zahawie had discussed "doing business" with Niger in the near-future. Niger's only real export is yellowcake uranium, and the last time Irag and Niger did "business" (back in the 1970s) Iraq did indeed purchase yellowcake uranium from that country. So when Wilson reported talks of the two countries doing "business" again, it was undertstandable that intelligence officials might interpret this as a sign that Saddam wanted to purchase yellowcake uranium again. At most, Wilson's findings corroborated US fears. At worse, they provided no new information. But nothing Wilson uncovered disproved Washington's fears that Saddam might be seeking to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
quote:
If the U.S. government is not torturing suspects (as almost every European media has been mentioning for years without being sued), maybe they should be more transparent about the way they treat detainees.
Since when should intelligence agencies be in the business of publicly discussing what they do and don't do? In any event, it has been more or less leaked that US intelligence employs waterboarding in extreme cases.
Again, if you want to accuse our country of torturing people (other than waterboarding) where is your evidence?
quote:
Meanwhile, I'll rather believe what Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have to say about the matter than any other view on the subject.
Again... evidence?
quote:
The answer to the question "why doesn't Europe believe in George W. Bush's good intentions can be extrapolated from my previous answers.
And since your answers were all wrong... well, extrapolate that.
|
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 07/04/2007 9:00:18 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked