Anyone see "Frontline" last night? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-23-2004, 09:32 AM   #1
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Anyone see "Frontline" last night?

It was on PBS

http://www.pbs.org

Quite a balanced, in-depth exploration of the search for Saddam's weapons. Conclusion: yes, he violated 1441 (long-range missles, noncooperation with inspectors), no, they do not even expect to find WMD. *sigh* I liked David Kay, I trusted him. I can't help but wonder if he was being replaced (as the show noted at the very end) because he was too insistent that if there were no WMD, he was not going to say there were. Anyone have another other details on this? Thoughts on the show?

SD
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 10:55 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:29 PM

I hope a lot of people (voters) watched this and realized the real threat was even a fraction of the threat Bush and Blair portrayed.

45 minutes my ass!!!
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is online now  
Old 01-23-2004, 08:48 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:29 PM
DrTeeth,

It actually takes less than 45 minutes to load up a 155mm Howitzer with a Bio/Chem capable shell and send it 30 miles down range, loaded with either sarin gas, mustard gas etc. Iraq actually did this on frequently against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians, with devastating effects on the Kurdish civilians.

Sherry Darling,

Member states of the UN never had to prove anything. Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY disarm, plain and simple. He didn't. I'm sure if I took all your U2 CD's and buried them in a 300 foot hole 20 miles from where you lived, you would never find them again. With the exception of the Bio/Chem capable shells, the Anthrax and Mustard gas could be in area no larger than the size of a two car garage, buried deep beneath the earth.

There are over 113 large Weapons dumps throughout Iraq. Only 10 have been completely searched so far.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 09:57 AM   #4
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Yes, Sting, you're repeated that quite a bit, and yes, according to the technicalities of 1441, you're right. But that should not obscure the fact that our president, VP, and Sec. of State insisted that he had actual present ready to use right now so we'd better get ON this or else WMD. Clearly now, he did not. Either the admin are master of self deception, had woeful intell or simply lied. I'm not sure I care which, none of the above are acceptable. I understand you think that Saddam was a bad man (duh ) and therefore, let's get him. I do hear that. But I also have this notion that the rationale and PROOF for a war should come before the bombs drop, and that the ends do not justify the means. History teaches how dangerous a moral compromise that kind of thinking is. Just MHO. You're point about the so-far uninspected sites is good. We'll see what the other ones reveal.

Here's the latest on David Kay. I was half kidding when I speculated he might have resigned because his party line is now contradicting the admin's. Turns out that might have been right....



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

January 24, 2004
Iraq Illicit Arms Gone Before War, Departing Inspector States
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

ASHINGTON, Jan. 23 David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said Friday after stepping down from his post that he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year.

In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Kay said he now thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions "got rid of them."

Asked directly if he was saying that Iraq did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country, Dr. Kay replied, according to a transcript of the taped interview made public by Reuters, "That is correct."

Dr. Kay did not respond to telephone calls and e-mail messages from The New York Times.

Dr. Kay's statements undermined one of the primary justifications set out by President Bush for the war with Iraq. Mr. Bush and other top administration officials repeatedly cited Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons as a threat to the United States, and the lack of evidence so far that Saddam Hussein actually had large caches of weapons has fueled criticism that Mr. Bush exaggerated the peril from Iraq.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration stood by its previous assessments that Mr. Hussein had both weapons programs and stores of banned weapons.

"Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found," Mr. McClellan said. "We believe the truth will come out."

With Dr. Kay's departure, the administration on Friday handed over the weapons search to Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations weapons inspector who has expressed skepticism that the United States and its allies would find any banned chemicals or biological agents.

Dr. Kay's comments and the appointment of Mr. Duelfer, made by George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, appeared to be a turning point in the administration's defense of its assertions that Mr. Hussein had amassed large stores of illicit weapons that he could use or turn over to terrorists for use against the United States or other nations.

The assessment Dr. Kay provided to Reuters on Friday was far more conclusive about Iraq's weapons programs than the report he delivered to the White House and Congress in October. At that time, he said he and his team "have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone."

But he also reported in October that his team had uncovered evidence of "dozens of W.M.D.-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

Although the White House stood by its statements last year that Mr. Hussein possessed stores of banned weapons, a position reiterated on Thursday by Vice President Dick Cheney, other administration officials said anonymously on Friday that the prospects that the search would turn up substantial caches of chemical or biological weapons were much diminished.

Dr. Kay told Reuters that one of the reasons he left was that the team he headed, the Iraq Survey Group, had been diverted to some degree for use in battling the insurgency in Iraq. That diversion, he said, left him short of the resources needed to complete the job by the end of June, when the United States plans to return sovereignty to the Iraqis.

He and his team were "not going to find much after June," he said. "I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find."

Democrats said Dr. Kay's statements raised serious questions about the administration's case for war and the quality of American intelligence. "It is increasingly clear that there has been a massive intelligence failure," Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "The potential threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and Iraq's nuclear weapons program was central to the case for war. In light of Dr. Kay's statement, the president owes the American public and the world an explanation."

Mr. McClellan said that the Defense Department had made decisions about providing money and people to the Iraq Survey Group, but that the group had been provided with additional support.

"We appreciate Dr. Kay's service and the ongoing work of the I.S.G.," Mr. McClellan said.

"They already have confirmed that Saddam Hussein was in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which gave him one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences," Mr. McClellan said, referring to the finding in Dr. Kay's interim report in October that Iraq was pursuing dozens of weapons programs and had hidden equipment from inspectors.

In choosing Mr. Duelfer to replace Dr. Kay, Mr. Tenet turned to an acknowledged expert in the field who has a reputation as a straight shooter. But the choice also highlighted divisions within the administration over the likelihood of finding banned weapons.

In an interview on Jan. 9 with PBS's "Newshour," Mr. Duelfer said that the prospect "of finding chemical weapons, biological weapons is close to nil at this point," and that the search by the United States had been more extensive than what the United Nations had been able to accomplish during the period that it was carrying out inspections in Iraq.

Mr. Duelfer, 51, served as deputy executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, or Unscom, from 1993 to 2000. Before that he served in the State Department during the administration of the first Mr. Bush. He has most recently been a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, a research organization in Washington.

In the "Newshour" interview, Mr. Duelfer also said it was "quite clear" that Mr. Hussein did at one point have banned weapons.

In a conference call with reporters on Friday after his appointment was formally announced, Mr. Duelfer said that his duty as an investigator was different from his role as an outside observer and that he had not prejudged the outcome of the search.

"My goal is to find out what happened," Mr. Duelfer said. "So I think you can understand that there would be a difference between someone who is handicapping the outcome of an investigation and one who is then in charge of the investigation."

Dr. Kay had said in October that it would take him another six to nine months to complete his work, suggesting that his final report could land in the middle of the presidential election campaign. Mr. Duelfer said he did not know how long it would take to complete his work.

The top administration officials who had been most vocal in accusing Iraq of building stockpiles of banned weapons, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney, have stood by their positions in recent weeks. Asked during an interview on Thursday with National Public Radio whether the administration had given up on finding banned weapons, Mr. Cheney replied, "No, we haven't."

He said it would "take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubby holes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that."
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 12:38 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Sherry Darling,

"But that should not obscure the fact that our president, VP, and Sec. of State insisted that he had actual present ready to use right now so we'd better get ON this or else WMD. Clearly now, he did not. Either the admin are master of self deception, had woeful intell or simply lied. I'm not sure I care which, none of the above are acceptable."

#1 Verifiably compliance had not been achieved and this was the chief reason for the removal of Saddam.

#2 Member states of the UN were never required to have evidence of anything.

#3 Anyone that studies intelligence knows that it can often be inaccurate or turn out not to be true. That is the nature of intelligence.

#4 The Stocks that Saddam had as late as 1998 are still unaccounted for. Such stocks do not disapear into thin air. One cannot infer that because such stocks have not been found that they do not exist, just as one cannot infer that because Bin Ladin has not been found that he does not exist. The items that are unaccounted for still exist in some state, regardless of what was done to them or where they are located now.

#5 Much the intelligence the Bush Administration used was from the Clinton administration. This whole self deception, and lies concept is simply democratic 2004 campaign rubbish.


"I understand you think that Saddam was a bad man (duh ) and therefore, let's get him. I do hear that."

The rational to remove Saddam was not based on the fact that he was a "bad man", but rather that his behavior in international relations and failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD were an intolerable threat to the international community.

As evidence to the fact, what other leader has invaded and attacked four countries unprovoked in the past 20 years? What other leader has threatened the Planets energy supply with theft and destruction and had the capability to carry out these threats? What other leader has murdered over 1.7 million people from various countries over the past 20 years?

Saddam is not just some common garden variety bad cat. He posed an enormous threat to the international community which is why 17 UN resolutions were passed against him under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. These are the most serious of resolutions authorizing the use of military force.

The need to remove Saddam is not something invented by the Bush administration.

"But I also have this notion that the rationale and PROOF for a war should come before the bombs drop, and that the ends do not justify the means. History teaches how dangerous a moral compromise that kind of thinking is."

The rational for war was laid down by Resolution 678, resolution 1441, and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and related programs. Saddam provided no "PROOF" that he had in fact completed this task, in March 2003. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he had disarmed, it was never incumbent on any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam had weapon a or b.

History shows that the inability or lack of will to use force earlier on, created massive problems in later years. Had the League of Nations, or France and England acted when Hitler was not yet strong enough to start the war, millions of lives would have been saved. But the overwhelming desire to avoid war at all costs to include the appeasment of Hitler allowed Hitler to improve his strength and invade and take over most of Europe.

"You're point about the so-far uninspected sites is good. We'll see what the other ones reveal."

It is a good point, but regardless of what is found or not found there, it is irrelevant to the case for war. The case for war was and has always been based on Verifiable disarmament not evidence of Weapon a or Factory Z.

The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement and other UN resolutions provided the basis and rational for war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 12:48 PM   #6
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:29 PM
So the UN had the right to decide to go to war against Iraq, not the US.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 12:58 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Klaus,

"So the UN had the right to decide to go to war against Iraq, not the US."

No, the UN had authorized the use of force against Saddam if he failed to comply with the resolutions. Whether or not the USA would have the right to go to war against Iraq independent of the UN would depend on the circumstances of the situation. In this case, the USA was one of several member states helping to enforce the resolutions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 02:55 PM   #8
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:29 PM
OMG! Now even POWELL admits they can't prove it. He told the Russians here that the WMD thing is an "open question." I've clung to respect for him, but this may have put the nail in the coffin. I wonder if Kay's report forced him to?

Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
His comments came after the former head of the US weapons inspection team, David Kay, said he did not believe there were any weapons stockpiles.

Mr Powell was speaking on his way to the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

Less than a year ago, Mr Powell warned the United Nations Security Council about the danger from Iraq's weapons.

In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.

He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.

But in his latest remarks, he told reporters travelling with him that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had any stocks of weapons of mass destruction at all.

"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Mr Powell said on his way to attend the inauguration on Sunday of the new Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili.

'No stockpiles'

On Friday, David Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq resigned.

He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.

"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

Responding to questions about Mr Kay's comments, Mr Powell said it was for the weapons inspectors still in Iraq to decide if there were any weapons stock or not, where they had gone if they had existed, and, if there were ever any weapons, why that was not known before the war.

Mr Powell acknowledged that the US thought Saddam Hussein had banned weapons, but added, "We had questions that needed to be answered.

"What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tonnes, 500 tonnes or zero tonnes? Was it so many litres of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"

Backtracking

The BBC's Jon Leyne, who is travelling with Mr Powell, says the secretary of state has made a significant concession on the weapons issue.

He says Mr Powell's language was very different from that of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said just two days ago that it was too early to pass judgement on whether weapons of mass destruction existed.

Our correspondent says that with members of the Bush administration steadily backtracking from their earlier claims, the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have a very uncertain future once sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqis at the end of June.

Mr Kay has been replaced by Charles Duelfer, a 51-year-old former UN weapons inspector, who said he would not "pre-judge" the investigation despite previously saying that he did not believe banned weapons would be found.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/3426703.stm

Published: 2004/01/24 18:32:28 GMT

BBC MMIV
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 03:10 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Sherry Darling,

"OMG! Now even POWELL admits they can't prove it. He told the Russians here that the WMD thing is an "open question." I've clung to respect for him, but this may have put the nail in the coffin. I wonder if Kay's report forced him to?"

Prior to the start of the war in late 2002, Powell had this to say:

"It is not incumbent upon the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they do not have Weapons of Mass Destruction."

This of course follows the conditions laid down by the March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

Oh, and Kay's report proves that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction programs in total violation of the Ceacefire and resolutions.

But the most important factor in the case for war is Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm!

Do you know of any UN resolutions that Saddam complied with?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2004, 09:31 AM   #10
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Sting, you're correct in the legal sense. Legally the obligation was on Saddam. *Ethically*, the obligation was on the Bush admin. And now they've admitted that they didn't have the proof they said they had! That's not okay with me.

You, I've noticed, repeat your arguement a lot with out giving me personally much impression that you've honestly wrestled with the other side of the story--not that you have to finally agree with "the other side", but I'd (again, just personally) find your opinion much more credible if I got the impression that you have honestly struggled with what is a very complex issue.

LOL--same with Bush, for that matter.

Anyway,
SD

P.S. Very good point, Klaus
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 01-25-2004, 04:19 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Sherry Darling,

"Sting, you're correct in the legal sense. Legally the obligation was on Saddam. *Ethically*, the obligation was on the Bush admin. And now they've admitted that they didn't have the proof they said they had! That's not okay with me."

#1 I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that it would be Unethical for the Bush administration to enforce the UN's most serious resolutions against Saddam, when Saddam was acting in total defiance of them.

If the league of Nations has enforced its resolutions against Germany in the 1930s, Europe would not of suffered the devestating war that it did in the 1940s.

These UN resolutions passed on chapter VII rules of the UN and other legalities have a Security, humanitarian and therefore an ethical basis as strong as or stronger than law that we have on the books to protect society.

A Society that fails to enforce its own laws designed to protect its citizens is not ethical. The failure to ensure Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam would have been unethical to the extreme.


As far as evidence or proof, it was not up to the administration to prove anything. Saddam was already found guilty in 1991 and required to Verifiably disarm. Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm is all the evidence one needs to take action.

If certain intelligence components did not work than that is a technical problem of more concern with operations of a military nature and in dealing with countries that are not violators to the degree that Saddam is but are a pause for some concern.

It was the democrats and the Clinton administration that cut the hell out of funds for intelligence in the 1990s, so if you are that concerned about "intelligence failures" I would you would approve a multi-Billion dollar increase each year for the intelligence services and US military in this regard to improve intelligence capability.

But, the fact remains that regardless of US intelligence capability or what one thinks of Bush, SADDAM failed to VERIFIABLY disarm and that is a fact independent of everything else that authorizes the use of military force. It would have been unethical and made such UN resolutions irrelevant if in the face of Saddam's defiance, military force had not been used.



"You, I've noticed, repeat your arguement a lot with out giving me personally much impression that you've honestly wrestled with the other side of the story--not that you have to finally agree with "the other side", but I'd (again, just personally) find your opinion much more credible if I got the impression that you have honestly struggled with what is a very complex issue."

During the early and mid 1990s(after the first Gulf War that I strongly supported), I was a vigerous opponent of actually going back in to remove Saddam from power. Back then, I thought that UN sanctions, a Weapons Embargo, and UN inspectors on the ground would be enough to contain him. I thought the cost of invasion was far greater than the cost of containment. Containment VS. going in and removing Saddam was in fact my arguement back then.

Saddam did to a certain degree, did initially cooperate with the inspections process. The feeling was that from the early 1990s to the mid 1990s, while there were problems, progress was being made and Saddam was contained.

In 1998, the total break down of the Inspection process and the eventual removal of the inspectors started to change my mind about the whole thing. I strongly supported the Clinton Administrations bombing campaign in 1998 when the inspectors were forced out. I was also surprised that it did not continue. The failure of Sanctions, the Weapons Embargo, and Saddam's ability to make Billions of dollars on the Black Market all showed me that Containment could easily fail and we could be stuck in a serious situation. I started to become more informed on the legal issues of military action against Saddam in the late 1990s as well.

I have to admit that I did not become 100% in favor of military action to remove Saddam until after 9/11. Before that, although I fully understood the failure of Saddam to comply and the risked that entailed from 1998-2002, I was not yet 100% for a full scale military invasion to remove him. I was worried about the huge cost of occupation and reforming the country or keeping it together.

What happened on 9/11 made me rethink the chances we were taking in all area's, not just Iraq, and what the consequences would be if something went wrong. The time without any inspectors on the ground 1998-2002, the fact that Saddam had not completely verifiably disarmed, the risk that could entail for the worlds energy supply, the potential for Saddam to even rebuild his conventional military at some point with weapons from other countries as Sanctions and the Embargo continued to erode.

My positions on a military invasion to remove Saddam in 1995 as compared to 2002 definitely changed. My opinion changed because #1 Saddam and his continued behavior and failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. #2 Not having inspectors on the ground from 1998-2002. #3 The events of 9/11 and the risk that the USA could be facing in other area's of security. #4 the fact that it was highly unlikely that Saddam could be removed without a fullscale military invasion. #5 the potential for Saddam to rearm with modern weapons through the black market or the evential total breakdown of Sanctions and the Weapons Embargo. #6 The effects of various WMD attacks on defenseless civilian populations. #7 re-examining the entire issue and better educating myself on the entire issue especially from the legal point of view about military action and the risk to US and international security if Saddam was not eventually verifiably disarmed.

At the end of the Gulf War in 1991, no one believed that Saddam would still be around in 5 years. It was important to insure that he was disarmed, and the inspectors early on were succeeding and Saddam was cooperating to a certain degree. Saddam everyone thought would probably be gone soon anyways. But Saddam did not go away and the entire process to contain him broke down. It also became questionable if even a successful embargo and sanctions regime would be enough.

Time and events and re-examining the issue changed my views on the entire issue as it did for many other people as well.

You ask if I have ever wrestled with the otherside of the story or the counter arguement to mine, well, the arguements sometimes made in here by the otherside used to be mine as well. So yes, you could definitely say I have wrestled with the issue since I have in fact completely changed my view points on various things regarding the issue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-26-2004, 09:27 AM   #12
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Sting,

That was a pleasure to read. Thanks so much for your transparency and for taking the time to share all that with us!

How can I conclude it's unethical for Bush and Co to procede with a war when they can't prove Saddam had WMD? Here's my logic: war is such a terrible hell that it needs to be avoided at all costs. As I see it, rather, Bush and Co went in search of a reason. Yes, legally, 1441 was violated. Even without finding, WMD, that is clear. But remember, 1441 didn't descend from On High. It was *created* by fallible diplomats in a highly violatle poliical environment. Perhaps the standards it set were simply wrong.

Either way, Bush and Co clearly argued the *urgency* (we can't wait for inspections to go on three more months, we have to do this right now because he's that immediately dangerous) was based on WMD. They were wrong, according to their own chosen inspector and now perhaps even the Sec. of State. If nothing else, Sting, we had time to continue with diplomacy. If ultimately that failed, at least we could have gone to war with more international support.

Again, thanks for your post!



SD
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com