MERGED--> all Israel/Lebanon conflict discussion, Pt. II - Page 7 - 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 08-01-2006, 05:33 PM   #91
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: 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



The Vietcong and the justness of US wars should probably be discussed in a different thread anyways.
You're right, this discussion would be for another thread. And despite being quite an amateur Vietnam war buff, I'd have to do some research to respond to your analysis of what happened in Vietnam.

I'll give you this--you seem very knowledgable, and you sound very convincing in all of your arguments. Yet your interpretation of events always sounds just a little too good to be true.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 05:53 PM   #92
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: 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


If you think there is a better way for Israel to defend against the thousands of rockets been fired into its cities and the terrorist incursions across its border, state what this better plan is instead of simply criticizing what the Israeli's are doing.

First off, let me concede an obvious point here. Obviously, Israel's current campaign will be "fine" in terms of preserving the existance of the Israeli state. When this is over, Israel will be fine, Lebanon will be in shambles,and Hezbollah will be regrouping and recruiting somewhere else. If all that Israel wants is to maintain a modicum of safety for it's people and continue it's wonderful course of technological and economic advancement, then yes you are probably right, Israel will be successful. Will Israel be successful in ending the factors that breed terrorism and that cause Israel to remain an armed camp (albeit a prosperous and technologically advanced armed camp)? I doubt it.

But now to the hard question. And it is a hard question. It's been much easier to complain about what's being done than to suggest what should be done instead. But I'll take a shot.

First off, Israel could have offered to work with the Lebanese government to take on Hezbollah. They could have said "Look, this group is launching rockets into our country, killing our people, they're crossing the border and wreaking havoc and we can't tolerate it. We know you can't do anything to stop them, but we have to try. You want Hezbollah out of your country. We want them away from our border. Let's work together. We have the military power to do what you can't. All we need is your permission and your cooperation in taking them on." The incursions could have been announced in advance. The Lebanese government could have assisted in getting civilains out of the area where the buffer zone would be created before an agreed upon deadline (like the one we had for the first Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq). Some might argue that if Hezbollah knew the invasion was coming, they would have packed up and moved away from the border with the civilians. Which would be fine. Everyone clears out of the buffer zone, and no one gets killed. Then together Lebanese and Israeli military focus on the issue of the kidnapped soldiers and further weakening Hezbollah.

I'm sure there will be many to tell me why this scenario is totally unrealistic and impractical and I'm ready to hear those arguments. After all these situations are usually not simple and don't have simple solutions, but this is a start at answering Sting2's challenge--if Israel shouldn't be doing what they're doing now, then what? They HAD to do something, after all.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 05:59 PM   #93
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: 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Israel's war separates the decent left from the indecent left
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 25, 2006




I believe the Left has been wrong on virtually every great moral issue in the last 30 years.

During that period, it was wrong on the Cold War -- it devoted far more energy to fighting anti-communism than to fighting communism.

It was wrong for attacking Israel for its destruction of Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor.

It was wrong on welfare.

It was wrong in its demanding less morally and intellectually from black Americans than from all other Americans.

It was wrong in advocating bilingual education for children of immigrants.

It was wrong in generally holding American society rather than violent criminals responsible for violent crime.

It was wrong in imposing its view on abortion on America through the courts rather than through the democratic process.

It was wrong in teaching a generation of men and women that men and women differ because of socialization not because of innate sex differences.

It was wrong in reducing sex to a purely biological and health issue for a generation of young Americans.

It was wrong in identifying "flag waving" with fascism.

It was wrong in supporting the teachers' unions rather than students and educational reform.

It was wrong in allying itself with trial lawyers and blocking tort reform.

It was wrong in blocking the military from recruiting on campuses and teaching a generation of young Americans that "war is not the answer" when war is at times the one moral answer.

It was wrong in arguing that America is not based on Judeo-Christian values, but on secular ones like Western Europe.

It was wrong in advancing multiculturalism, which is an extreme form of moral relativism that holds all cultures morally identical and which is a doctrine designed to undermine American national identity.

In just about every instance, one could say that the Left was foolish, the Left was naive, the Left was wrong, even that the Left was dangerous. But in all of those cases, one could imagine a decent person holding any or even all of these positions.

But we now have a bright line that divides the decent -- albeit usually wrong -- Left from the indecent Left.

The Left's anti-Israel positions until now were based, at least in theory, on its opposition to Israeli occupation of Arab land and its belief in the "cycle of violence" between Israel and its enemies. However, this time there is no occupied land involved and the violence is not a cycle with its implied lack of a beginning. There is a clear aggressor -- a terror organization devoted to Islamicizing the Middle East and annihilating Israel -- and no occupation.

That is why the Israeli Left is almost universally in favor of Israel's war against Hezbollah. Amos Oz, probably Israel's best-known novelist and leading spokesman of its Left, a lifetime critic of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians, wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

"Many times in the past, the Israeli peace movement has criticized Israeli military operations. Not this time. . . . This time, Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself from daily harassment and bombardment of dozens of our towns and villages. . . . There can be no moral equation between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are, while Israel is targeting mostly Hezbollah."

Likewise, another longtime liberal critic of Israel, historian and Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, wrote last week:

"As one who rejects war, I regret Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon last week, as I deplored Israeli attacks in population centers and on infrastructure in Gaza. . . . Yet, given the rejectionism of both Hamas and Hezbollah . . . is the path of negotiations actually open to Israel? . . . There is no moral equivalence between enemies here. . . . It seems urgent [to] reaffirm foundational support for Israel. . . . The fury of anti-Israel rage among Arabs and Muslims is accounted for only partially by the present conflict. It resuscitates . . . the long European habit of scapegoating Jews. . . . No one should think that embedded contempt for Jews -- anti-Semitism -- is not part of the current crisis."

Amos Oz and James Carroll are men of the Left who have been tested and passed the most clarifying moral litmus test of our time -- Israel's fight for existence against the primitives, fanatics and sadists in Hezbollah and Hamas and elsewhere in the Arab/Muslim world who wish to destroy it. Anyone on the Left who cannot see this is either bad, a useful idiot for Islamic terrorists, anti-Semitic or all three. There is no other explanation for morally condemning Israel's war on Hezbollah.
You know I could rip to shreds that tripe at the beginning of this post, but I'm not going to since it would just take this thread off topic. But you see the appeal, don't you? Like I said in another thread, the Right just makes the better movie. That litany of the Leftness wrong just sounds so strong, so muscular, like John Wayne, Mel Gibson, and Clint Eastwood all roled into wrong. It sounds simple, certain, sure. Black and white. Good guys and bad guys. Tough. It makes a great blockbuster action flick. But it makes for crap policy. But in a world where politics has increasingly become a form of entertainment, the Right wins the day hands down.

But. . .back to topic. While I know there is widespread support in Israel for what is currently happening in Lebanon, it's not like there aren't voices of dissent IN Israel as well. Several examples, including the soldier who went to jail rather than fight in Lebanon, are on this thread if you've taken the time to read them.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 06:55 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 08:29 AM
http://break.com/index/what_really_h...pallywood.html
(Please Watch)

And yet we are so quick to judge the israelies.........
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 07:55 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Generally, I support Israel and know it must defend itself against terrorists. I don't automatically support everything their politicians do, however. I didn't like Sharon, and I don't think I like the current leader much better. I need to do some research on Hezbollah, I really don't know much about this particular terrorist outfit. Alll I really know is that I hate terrorism and condemn people for participating in terrorist activities.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 08:26 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:29 AM
I support Israel
and a mid-east settlement.

a unilateral settlement from Israel
is ridiculous

would Israel accept one from the Palestinians?

a settlement that is fair/just? will not be one that Israel finds acceptable
(or the Palestinians, for that matter,
but few seem to even consider the Palestinians)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 10:24 PM   #97
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Really, is that what happened in 2001 with Al Quada in Afghanistan? Israel has been dealing with terrorism longer than any other country on the planet, and they know full well what is effective and what is not in combating it.
Here's a thought: if Israel has been fighting terror so long, as you say, yet so effectively, as you say....why are they still having to fight?

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 10:50 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling


Here's a thought: if Israel has been fighting terror so long, as you say, yet so effectively, as you say....why are they still having to fight?

Thats a question you should ask those who keep attacking them for no legitimate reason. My point has been Israel has done what it needs to do to survive and thrive in the middle of a region that has been trying to destroy it for 58 years. Yet, Israel has one of the highest standards of living in the world. They are democracy. They have achieved their dream and will continue to defend it when they are attacked.

When was the last time any Arab country or Arab terrorist organization was able to put a dent in or stop, Israel's progress as a prosperous nation? Look at what Israel has achieved as country for the past 58 years. What have the Palestinians terror groups and Hezbollah achieved? What has Lebanon and Syria achieved?

The world still has to fight terrorism and crime, and will probably have to on some level for an indefinite time. Israel success and effectivness has been their ability to survive and thrive against the unbelievable odds against them. To suggest that because they have not ended global terrorism or the need to defend themselves, that their policies have been ineffective is simply absurd.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 10:51 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
angelordevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Inside a sound
Posts: 5,827
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


a settlement that is fair/just? will not be one that Israel finds acceptable
(or the Palestinians, for that matter,
but few seem to even consider the Palestinians)

What's glaringly apparent is our inability to learn from the mistakes and battles in the past. CBC Radio played a clip here in Canada a few days ago from the Israel/PLO conflicts of the early '80s. It was a revealing listen, to say the least--you could clearly hear the very same ideological arguments, but with a different cast of characters.

It's truly a mystery to me why we don't learn from this stuff. It might simply be an act of self-preservation from both sides, but the lack of evolution in dialogue is very frustrating from my vantage point.
__________________
angelordevil is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 10:56 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
I support Israel
and a mid-east settlement.

a unilateral settlement from Israel
is ridiculous

would Israel accept one from the Palestinians?

a settlement that is fair/just? will not be one that Israel finds acceptable
(or the Palestinians, for that matter,
but few seem to even consider the Palestinians)
Israel offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted back in 2000. They rejected the offer. Israel offered the Syrians 99% of the Golan Heights, they rejected the offer. Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, and what has been the result, a massive build up of Hezbollah military strength, the launching of thousands of rockets into Israel and incursions to capture and kill Israeli's. Israel just recently pulled out of Gaza, and what was the response, terrorism against Israel.

From 1948 when Israel accepted the UN partition plan rejected by the Palestinians that would have given them the state they supposedly seek, to 2006, Israel has accepted several proposals that have been presented, the Palestinians have rejected every one.

The problem is not Israel, but those who only believe in the use of violence and terrorism in attempting to get what they want and have rejected every peace plan presented to them for 58 years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 11:02 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by angelordevil



What's glaringly apparent is our inability to learn from the mistakes and battles in the past. CBC Radio played a clip here in Canada a few days ago from the Israel/PLO conflicts of the early '80s. It was a revealing listen, to say the least--you could clearly hear the very same ideological arguments, but with a different cast of characters.

It's truly a mystery to me why we don't learn from this stuff. It might simply be an act of self-preservation from both sides, but the lack of evolution in dialogue is very frustrating from my vantage point.
Israel has what it wants, and independent, prosperous democracy. The Lebanenese and Palestinians continue to live in the same poverty like conditions because they refuse to accept any peace plans offered them and engage in terrorism that has done nothing for their people over 58 years.

Things have changed inside Israel since the early 1980s. The standard of living, health, technology for the people has increased just like it has in other first world countries around the world. Israel has agreed to peace deals that would have created a Palestinian State giving them 95% of what they wanted. They in turn have rejected every peace deal since 1948.

Israel has indeed changed in many ways since the early 1980s, unfortunately, many of their neighbors are stuck in the past.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 02:53 AM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Israel offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted back in 2000.
Would Israel take an offer from the Palestinians that is 95% of what Israel states they can accept?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 03:41 AM   #103
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I'm sure there will be many to tell me why this scenario is totally unrealistic and impractical and I'm ready to hear those arguments. After all these situations are usually not simple and don't have simple solutions, but this is a start at answering Sting2's challenge--if Israel shouldn't be doing what they're doing now, then what? They HAD to do something, after all.
Thank you for reclaiming the elephant from the closet.

Militarily speaking, I'm with the majority of posters in here--Israel's current approach is highly unlikely to decisively crush Hezbollah as a militia, it's further inflaming the deep regional distrusts that already exist, and it's resulting in unacceptable losses of civilian life and infrastructure, given both the past and present scope of the threat. Politically speaking, though, I'm far more sympathetic to Israeli pessimism about the prospect that any other parties to the situation (in the Middle East or elsewhere) will ever muster up the resolve and resources necessary to disarm Hezbollah and cut its cords to Tehran and Damascus. And I don't share Sherry's optimism that if Israel only fought terrorism and the hostilities underlying it more "effectively," there would be nothing left to fight. Far too many parties involved still categorically refuse to grant Israel's right to exist where it is, and are wholly unwilling to negotiate that point. I also don't think it's valid to analogize Hezbollah to Hamas. Yes, we can and should debate Israel's handling of the occupied territories and Gaza, as well as whether Israel should embrace negotiations with Hamas on the assumption that they'll eventually come around to fully recognizing Israel's right to exist in exchange for autonomy and peace. But if nothing else (and assuming the fundamental goals of the now-crippled "road map" are still alive and breathing somewhere) Hamas really is based out of what would be the land of the people they claim to speak for, and really is committed to securing autonomy and a viable state for said people. The same simply cannot be said of Hezbollah. Regardless of their political role as a voice for Lebanese Shiites, as a militia group, they're first and foremost a proxy for Iran and Syria, and if their "soldiers" really had service to Lebanon foremost in their minds, they'd instead join the Lebanese army and push for that organization to move into Shebaa farms and confront the IDF there themselves...if Israel's presence there is really the non-negotiable casus belli the Lebanese government's response to UN Resolution 1559 made it out to be, UN disagreement that Shebaa was ever Lebanese territory notwithstanding.

The demand that Lebanon disarm Hezbollah is not new: Resolution 1559 (2004) called for full withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and for the disbanding of all Lebanese militias, especially Hezbollah--to which the Lebanese government's response was, essentially, "Nyah nyah, let's see you make us," a challenge to which, not exactly surprisingly, the UN has failed to respond, settling instead for a small and toothless "observer" force, and unhelpfully observing that Lebanon is "confessionally divided," making implementation difficult. It took the assassination of the Lebanese PM in early 2005 to galvanize Lebanese opposition to the Syrian occupation enough to force Syria out (and Syria is likely quite pleased that all the current misfortunes next door are distracting the UN from their ongoing investigation into Syria's role in that incident). Following a November 2005 attack in which Hezbollah combined the attempted abduction of 11 IDF soldiers with a Katyusha barrage "distraction," the UN twice reiterated its call for Lebanon to implement the rest of the Resolution, again fruitlessly. (This was not the first time Hezbollah had attempted such things; for example in 2000 they abducted 3 IDF soldiers, for which Israel negotiated, and followed through with, the release of over 400 prisoners detained for security reasons; Hezbollah then returned the 3 soldiers, but as corpses unfortunately. As those of us old enough to remember the Lebanese Civil War probably recall, their track record for returning hostages alive, Jewish or otherwise, is not good. Additionally, if you fold in their past bombing campaigns, they are believed to have killed some 258 Americans and 113 Argentinians, as well as smaller numbers of other nationals.) In January 2006 the UN also called on Syria to stop funneling Iranian transfers of arms and personnel to Hezbollah, and to stop funding Hezbollah and hosting training camps for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Kurdish militants. That didn't happen either: the Baathist regime in Damascus may be happy enough to hand over Sunni extremists who resent Alawite domination of majority-Sunni Syria, but where Shiite extremists are concerned, it's generally more profitable for them to side with Iran.

There was a very good article in Sunday's New York Times (registration required) about the nature and scope of Iran's strategic interests in Lebanon, the essential points of which were:
Quote:
The Islamic Revolution in 1979 was viewed by its clerical leaders as a part of a pan-Muslim movement. Linking up with the Shiite Muslims of southern Lebanon was part of Iran’s efforts to spread its ideological influence. But in building up Hezbollah, the ideological motivation fused with a practical desire to put a force on Israel’s northern border...Iran believed that Israel might pause before attacking it because they would assume Hezbollah would assault the northern border. If Hezbollah emerges weaker, or restrained militarily because of domestic politics, Iran feels it may be more vulnerable.

...If Hezbollah emerges as the primary political force in Lebanon, Arab governments, which have not pressed hard for a cease-fire, may find that in order to deal with Hezbollah they will have to work through Iran..."It is inconceivable for anyone who calls himself a Muslim and who heads an Islamic state to maintain relations under the table with the regime that occupied Jerusalem,” said President Ahmadinejad in an interview on Iranian television this week, in a clear dig against governments like [Egypt's, Jordan's and Saudi Arabia's]. "He cannot take pleasure in the killing of Muslims yet present himself as a Muslim. This is inconceivable, and must be exposed. Allah willing, it will."
By most current estimates, Iran gives Hezbollah roughly $200 million per year (in addition to arms shipments), as well as an additional $15 million for Hezbollah's Beirut-based al-Manar TV station (owing to the circumstances, the link may or may not be active; it was yesterday, but isn't as I type this). However Iran is not thought to host as many Hezbollah training camps as Lebanon and Syria do, perhaps for proximity reasons.

Since references to earlier Hezbollah-IDF skirmishes and Katyusha attacks keep coming up, but numbers have not yet been cited (so far as I can tell), here are lists from Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs of border incidents from May 2000-August 2003 and border incidents resulting in Israeli casualties from May 2000-May 2006. If anyone knows of an analogous Lebanese government source providing similar information from the other side, please post it; I looked, but couldn't find anything.

Because I believe, at this point, that the situation requires a concerted international response, it's easier for me to talk about what Israel shouldn't do (and what the UN should), than about what Israel should do and how the UN might facilitate that. What Israel should not do is continue to use conventional warfare tactics against Hezbollah; the costs to Lebanon at large, not to mention Israel's future standing with its neighbors, for long-term Israeli "success" against Hezbollah are and would be simply too high. What the UN should do is pull together not only a peace and reconstruction plan, but also sufficient, combat-ready international forces to help implement it--and that plan must include a *UN* mandate to oversee Hezbollah's disarmament. And that is going to be the big sticking point: Hezbollah MPs have signed on "in principle" to PM Fouad Siniora's Lebanese peace proposal, on the understanding that disarmament talks between the various Lebanese factions will wait until after the UN has announced the composition and mandate of its forces. However, several Hezbollah MPs have already expressly stated that they will not sign on to any disarmament plan which does not grant sole sovereign authority for ensuring Hezbollah's compliance to the Lebanese government. IMO, such a plan would be virtually guaranteed to fail, which in all likelihood is precisely what Hezbollah--and their friends in Tehran and Damascus--wants.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 03:51 AM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

Would Israel take an offer from the Palestinians that is 95% of what Israel states they can accept?
Somehow drive the Jews into the sea doesn't have the 95% two state solution ring to it. The failure in 2000 rests on Arafat, even the Saudies blamed him.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 04:36 AM   #105
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: 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

The demand that Lebanon disarm Hezbollah is not new: Resolution 1559 (2004) called for full withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and for the disbanding of all Lebanese militias, especially Hezbollah--to which the Lebanese government's response was, essentially, "Nyah nyah, let's see you make us," a challenge to which, not exactly surprisingly, the UN has failed to respond, settling instead for a small and toothless "observer" force, and unhelpfully observing that Lebanon is "confessionally divided," making implementation difficult. It took the assassination of the Lebanese PM in early 2005 to galvanize Lebanese opposition to the Syrian occupation enough to force Syria out (and Syria is likely quite pleased that all the current misfortunes next door are distracting the UN from their ongoing investigation into Syria's role in that incident). Following a November 2005 attack in which Hezbollah combined the attempted abduction of 11 IDF soldiers with a Katyusha barrage "distraction," the UN twice reiterated its call for Lebanon to implement the rest of the Resolution, again fruitlessly.
So, Yolland, what's your take on the Lebanese government? Are they unwilling to deal with Hezbollah themselves? Or they willing but unable? Because if they've chosen to look the other way with Hezbollah, I could certainly understand Israel's decision to take on Lebanon as a whole. Would you say the relationship between the Lebanese gov and Hezbollah is analogous to the relationship between say the Taliban and Al-Quaeda? Because if so my scenario would not have worked.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean 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 10:29 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