Italian nun shot dead by Somali gunmen - Page 8 - 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 09-19-2006, 10:10 PM   #106
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Be ashamed all you want of the actions of those whom you think are behaving in a way that doesn't match your view of how a Christian should act.

But you should never be ashamed of being a Christian. Being a Christian means you are a follower of Christ. Are you ashamed that you worship the one who gave up his life on the cross for you?

There have been many instances in which I have not agreed with other Christians and have not liked the way they acted. But I have never been ashamed to be a Christian.
Perhaps I should have rephrased it. The behavior of some Christians brings shame on the name of Christ. Whether that has happened on this thread is debatable perhaps, but I'm sure you'll agree that does happen from time to time.

Obviously, I'm not ashamed of being a follower of Christ and my personal relationship with Him is not shaken by the behavior of others.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:14 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I didn't know I was actually in a debate with Yolland - we were just exchanging some ideas. When I agree with someone - I agree. If I don't - well, I don't.
What is it with me and semantics lately? First "ashamed" and now "debate." I could tell that you were enjoying the exchange of ideas, and in fact what I appreciated was your reasoned and respectful tone, plus the fact that you actually engaged Yollands points in discussion rather than ignoring them. Perhaps "debate" was not the right word.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:39 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


What is it with me and semantics lately? First "ashamed" and now "debate." I could tell that you were enjoying the exchange of ideas, and in fact what I appreciated was your reasoned and respectful tone, plus the fact that you actually engaged Yollands points in discussion rather than ignoring them. Perhaps "debate" was not the right word.
Yeah - sorry to call you out on your choice of words.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-20-2006, 07:16 AM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Yeah - sorry to call you out on your choice of words.
It's okay. It's been one of those days. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-21-2006, 04:00 AM   #110
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:28 AM
Thanks for posting the Barnett information, AEON. It reads rather more like a glossary than a plan, but I can deduce a little about what sorts of strategies he advocates from it. A few questions that came to mind when reading it:

--I assume you'd agree that the Administration's Iraq strategy is not currently showing many signs of yielding the desired "Big Bang" effect. In your opinion, what kinds of changes might be called for to make that outcome a reality?

--Do you agree with his assessment of Homeland Security, and could you elaborate a bit on what he finds wrong with it?

--"Pre-emption is the big new rule" strikes me as problematic on several levels--for one thing, I think you could argue that "pre-emptive" thinking underlay a lot of Cold War-era jostling over these "lesser includeds," and for another, what exactly "pre-emption" entails I think requires some well-defined criteria for action, given his own warning that "[rule-set reset] can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease." Does he offer any such criteria in his books?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-21-2006, 08:15 AM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Aeon, I also found Barnett's ideas fascinating. Thanks for posting that.

The interesting thing for me, is that as I was integrating all the different concepts he was developing, the "big picture" didn't necessarily seem to be leading towards pre-emption, at least not as practiced by the Bush administration thus far. So I was surprised by that conclusion near the end.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-21-2006, 06:24 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Thanks for posting the Barnett information, AEON. It reads rather more like a glossary than a plan, but I can deduce a little about what sorts of strategies he advocates from it. A few questions that came to mind when reading it:

--I assume you'd agree that the Administration's Iraq strategy is not currently showing many signs of yielding the desired "Big Bang" effect. In your opinion, what kinds of changes might be called for to make that outcome a reality?

--Do you agree with his assessment of Homeland Security, and could you elaborate a bit on what he finds wrong with it?

--"Pre-emption is the big new rule" strikes me as problematic on several levels--for one thing, I think you could argue that "pre-emptive" thinking underlay a lot of Cold War-era jostling over these "lesser includeds," and for another, what exactly "pre-emption" entails I think requires some well-defined criteria for action, given his own warning that "[rule-set reset] can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease." Does he offer any such criteria in his books?
I have my monthly National Guard drill these next 4 days, then I will offer more of an in depth answer to your questions.

Yes, it is more of a glossary than a plan - unfortunately I could not find an outline of his plan to post. But you can sort of see his general line of thinking by reading this. His blog is very interesting to run through. I thoroughly disagree with him that Kerry would be doing a better job - but I agree on many other of his points. I try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I personally think he would make a good Secretary of Defense.

(BTW- I just watched the "Fog of War" last night - the McNamara documentrary. Great, great movie. It's very balanced - meaning it displays his genius as well as his weaknesses.)
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-21-2006, 06:34 PM   #113
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
I think we can all agree this will never be settled while the nation-state of Israel exists.
No, we most certainly cannot.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 04:11 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Thanks for posting the Barnett information, AEON. It reads rather more like a glossary than a plan, but I can deduce a little about what sorts of strategies he advocates from it. A few questions that came to mind when reading it:

--I assume you'd agree that the Administration's Iraq strategy is not currently showing many signs of yielding the desired "Big Bang" effect. In your opinion, what kinds of changes might be called for to make that outcome a reality?
Basically, I think this will take time. Nobody expected the insurgency to be as big as it is. But if you also look back at Bush/Rumsfeld quotes in 2003 they said over and over again that it will take years to rebuild Iraq.

I hate to say this, but a Democrat who is strong on defense has the best chance of leading the “SysAdmin” force necessary to stabilize Iraq – and then possible creating a ripple effect of democracy in the Middle East. A person like Howard Dean won’t have the trust of the defense community, and a person like Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld won’t be able to unite the country or gather enough international support. I don’t know of a candidate that meets this requirement. A man like Lieberman would have been the Dem’s best chance – but the far left will keep a person like him from getting out of the primaries. Hillary is definitely doing her best to seem like she is “pro-military” – but the defense community doesn’t trust her husband, and that distrust will probably extend to her.

I believe we need a 300,000 to 500,000 multinational peacekeeping force (with Americans NOT providing the bulk of the personnel) to 1) minimize the terrorist attacks on the civilians (return law and order) and 2) get Iraq connected to the global market. The force would be comprised of military police, intelligence, communication technicians, public affairs personnel, engineers, teachers…etc.

The US should continue to have Special Ops and crack Infantry-type soldiers in the country to remove serious threats.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
--Do you agree with his assessment of Homeland Security, and could you elaborate a bit on what he finds wrong with it?
I basically agree with Barnett’s assessment of HS. I think that it has too much of an “Ameri-centric” mindset. Like Barnett, I believe the best way to keep America secure is by integrating “Gap” countries into the “Functioning Core.” Barnett argues that this goal needs its own cabinet level chair in order to get financed properly. It needs to be separate from the Department of Defense, CIA, FBI…etc

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
--"Pre-emption is the big new rule" strikes me as problematic on several levels--for one thing, I think you could argue that "pre-emptive" thinking underlay a lot of Cold War-era jostling over these "lesser includeds," and for another, what exactly "pre-emption" entails I think requires some well-defined criteria for action, given his own warning that "[rule-set reset] can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease." Does he offer any such criteria in his books?
Barnett argues that any nation or regime that fights to keep their community “disconnected” from the Core should be a target for a Leviathan invasion (regime change) followed by a massive SysAdmin/peacekeeping/get-them-connected ASAP-force. His premise is that war and terrorism in the 21st century will come from leaders trying to keep their countries from joining the Functioning Core. All of the countries in the Functioning Core play by certain rules in order to enjoy the benefits of the global economy. The price of being a member of the Core is that once a country gets connected, they lose a bit of national identity and local leaders lose total control of information – the citizens become more “cosmopolitan.” This is good for women, minority rights, human rights...etc – bad for those who want to remain in total control over their population.

Basically, Barnett is arguing that we can have a long period of unparalleled world peace if we can “shrink the Gap” and “increase the Core.” If we have to use the Big Bang in order to move countries into the Core – then that’s what we (“we” is not just the US, but the other Core countries as well) must do.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 04:22 PM   #115
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Nobody expected the insurgency to be as big as it is.
No, Bush and his admin didn't realize this because they didn't care to plan, there were many who were saying this would happen.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 04:23 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No, Bush and his admin didn't realize this because they didn't care to plan, there were many who were saying this would happen.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 04:30 PM   #117
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No, Bush and his admin didn't realize this because they didn't care to plan, there were many who were saying this would happen.


sort of like how nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.

there's a difference between underestimating (or, willfully underestimating ... because we know that this administration doesn't want to hear what it doesn't like) and not anticipating.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 04:34 PM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 06:28 AM
And of course we all remember what a stand up job Paul Bremer did...
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 04:59 PM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:28 PM
Well - many leaders on both sides of the political fence saw Iraq as a real threat because of WMD. You can't just blame the CIA under Bush because much of the intelligence was gathered in the 90's under Clinton.


Here are some quotes that are calling for action against Iraq from the late 90's through 2003:


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 05:32 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Well - many leaders on both sides of the political fence saw Iraq as a real threat because of WMD. You can't just blame the CIA under Bush because much of the intelligence was gathered in the 90's under Clinton.




while most people agreed that Saddam was a threat, a contained threat but a threat nonetheless, only one man thought that this threat was worth waging an all-out, unilateral (by any meaningful definition of the term) invasion of Iraq.

while all agreed on the intelligence, it seemed the Bush administration deliberately cherry-picked the intelligence, and downplayed fears about the post-war, in order to make the intelligence appear more "actionable."

and they exploited 9-11 to a grotesque degree to manipulate the American public into acquiescing support for the war.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 01:28 AM.


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