My brilliant solution for Iraq - Page 2 - 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 12-04-2006, 08:19 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:29 AM
One problem with your solution is the neighbors. Turkey wants an independent Kurdistan about like Tayyip Erdogan (Turkish PM) wants a hole in his head. Turkey is the only democracy in the Middle East, and they carry considerable weight. We screwed up big time when we thought we could use Turkey as a northern front in the war. Guess what? The Turkish parliament voted against allowing this.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 08:23 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Re: Re: My brilliant solution for Iraq

Quote:
Originally posted by menelaos
The 2003 invasion of Iraq I thing should be considered equal to Napoleon's Waterloo battle...
I agree.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 08:26 PM   #18
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Here is the article that accompanied the maps.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.

The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day.

The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.

As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.

A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.

A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam's holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.

While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice — which we might not like — would also give Saudi Arabia's coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.

Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.

What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.

The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate — as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders, as would Oman.

In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.

Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.

From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely — the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.

If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 08:53 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Re: My brilliant solution for Iraq

Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch
I don't know why no one has thought of it.
Senator Joe Biden has been saying it for a long time.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 10:48 PM   #20
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lindenhurst Long Island
Posts: 174
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Why don't we stick an American flag in the ground and be done with all this nonsense.Just Imagine....That's what the people want anyway.That is why so many come to America!So lets bring it to them! We can call it Arabrica!
__________________
u2fan628 is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 04:08 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:29 PM
If partition took place a stick and carrot method could work by supporting more progressive nations i.e. Kurdistan.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 06:42 AM   #22
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Re: My brilliant solution for Iraq

Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch
The only real solution to stopping the factional violence is to separate the country of Iraq into regions- one for the Kurds, one for the Shiites, one for each type of Sunnis. Then no one would feel they had to fight the other for control of the government!
Actually, this solution has been brought up before. The Kurds and the Shi'ites would probably welcome this solution. It's the Sunnis that viciously oppose it, and the main reason for that is because the land that they live on is a complete wasteland and has no resources--namely, no oil. Their prosperity is, essentially, dependent on the land that the Kurds and Shi'ites live on.

So, really, this solution isn't as straightforward as it looks.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 06:44 AM   #23
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
One problem with your solution is the neighbors. Turkey wants an independent Kurdistan about like Tayyip Erdogan (Turkish PM) wants a hole in his head. Turkey is the only democracy in the Middle East, and they carry considerable weight. We screwed up big time when we thought we could use Turkey as a northern front in the war. Guess what? The Turkish parliament voted against allowing this.
Yes, Turkey would probably send in its military to crush any Kurdish state. So that adds another dimension to all of this.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 06:53 AM   #24
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
This is from the Armed Forces Journal.




The AFJ article has the obvious condescending tone to it, that Americans can and should solve all the world's problems, so nothing surprising about their propositions.

I probably should state this, it will be a cold day in hell before Turkey allows that to happen. By that, I don't mean only the Army, as my Greek friend has suggested. There is a saying in Turkish about 'not surrendering an ounce of the land', and this is something that is believed by a very large proportion of the population. Also, since the biggest Kurdish city in the world, by the number of people living there, is Istanbul, we'd obviously have to surrender that piece of land too, you might imagine why that would be a no-no.

What I mean is, partition of Iraq is not an option Turkey is willing to accept. It will be perceived as a hostile move on the part of the United States, and will further fuel the already significant anti-American sentiment in the country. To counter what menelazos said, you wouldn't need a junta in Turkey to draw up war plans in Northern Iraq, the people and the parliament would back such a move if it ever came to that. Honestly, we don't care about the US's ambitions in the region, the country will do what it has to do in alignment with its self-interest. Whether that might put us to the uncomfortable situation of having to confront the US forces in the North, is another issue.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 07:06 AM   #25
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
The AFJ article has the obvious condescending tone to it, that Americans can and should solve all the world's problems, so nothing surprising about their propositions.
Except that that proposition would possibly happen if America completely ignored the Middle East as it currently does Africa. Probably the only reason we're interested in the Middle East is because of its oil, and, as such, a quasi-stable status quo is preferable to upheaval of any kind.

However, if oil was no longer in the picture and we left the Middle East alone, the entire region would probably devolve into war, much as Europe did in the millennium after the fall of the Roman Empire. Then the borders would be decided by who had the largest military and the cruelest methods for waging war.

A millennium of warfare in Europe achieved an organic evolution of the nation state; one which allowed for the dissolution of tribal loyalties. In fact, the European nation is, essentially, one large "tribe." That's obviously not the case with the Middle East, where tribal loyalties still run stronger in many places than loyalties to the state. I think this article tries to envision what the Middle East would have looked like, had it been allowed to organically develop, and builds that on the assumption that no ethnic group was wiped out by warfare (as was the fate of many now-lost tribes in European history).
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 09:38 AM   #26
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:29 AM
World War III here we come..!!!

Seriously now this map should better not be shown in Turkey they have enough problems with the E.U. already....

In the contrary maybe the "american" solution to the problem is that Turkey will become a member to the E.U. Then automatically the problem will pass from U.S. hands to the E.U. hands...Here's the key -in my opinion- to the Brittish and U.S. support to Turkey...

Unfortunately the only solution tend to be the 3 "ethnnically" clean states with big guarantees to Turkey that they won't include Turkish lands...This solution will probably be the source of a bigger problem in the future when the free part of Kurdistan will want to unite with their "brothers" in Turkey...Then Turkey will want more weapons system, U.S. will sell them as always overpriced and everyone will be happy again...
__________________
menelaos is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 10:00 AM   #27
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:29 PM
You know why we have those problems with the EU

In any case, this map is of American origin, so how is it relevant to the EU-Turkey relations?

Coming back on topic, WWIII????? Thats a stretch, to say the least. The point of my post was that because all those underlying factors, US would not go ahead with partition, it is a non-starter, because all the neighbouring countries, Iran, Turkey and Syria would be against such a solution. We have seen what comes out of unilateralist behaviour so far, so I am hoping US has learned something out of this mess.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 10:49 AM   #28
War Child
 
menelaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hellas, and God knows where else you 've got your tape recorders turned on...
Posts: 652
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
You know why we have those problems with the EU

In any case, this map is of American origin, so how is it relevant to the EU-Turkey relations?

Coming back on topic, WWIII????? Thats a stretch, to say the least. The point of my post was that because all those underlying factors, US would not go ahead with partition, it is a non-starter, because all the neighbouring countries, Iran, Turkey and Syria would be against such a solution. We have seen what comes out of unilateralist behaviour so far, so I am hoping US has learned something out of this mess.
All I'm trying to say is that the U.S. goverment was extremely stupid to deside this war in this part of the world wich "burns"...The next brilliant step of Bush administration is to go in war with the Koreans or the Iranians...
Imagine what would have happened in the States, if these huge amounts of money they spent for the war, was going in research programs, environmental solutions, fight against poverty, etc...

No offence all_i_want
Peace

There's a chain reaction down there, none can denny it...
Just imagine what will be the problems EU will have face if we have direct boarders with a country in the middle of a civil war, in total chaos and with opinions that are directly against the so called western civilisation...
__________________
menelaos is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 11:50 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
starsgoblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Looking for direction to perfection
Posts: 17,828
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Re: My brilliant solution for Iraq

Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch


The only real solution to stopping the factional violence is to separate the country of Iraq into regions- one for the Kurds, one for the Shiites, one for each type of Sunnis. Then no one would feel they had to fight the other for control of the government! Separate automous regions, or even countries, would settle these unsolvable differences. For a few years, UN sanctioned peacekeepers could guard the borders and see how it goes.

What do you think?

It may sound good in theory but that can't work under certain circumstances. Geographically, Iraq has oil in the north and the south regions, while the middle of Iraq is basically a giant sandbox. So the Sunnis would basically get screwed in this deal as the dominant faction of them are in the middle and therefore would have no lucrative or valuable territory.
__________________
starsgoblue is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 12:04 PM   #30
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:29 PM
This guy offers a more doable solution. Maybe the only one, considering the context. He is basically saying that US troops are not suited to handle the situation, and should be replaced with NATO.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6bb14df6-7fd...0779e2340.html

International way forward in Iraq
By Jacob Weisberg

Published: November 29 2006 19:12 | Last updated: November 29 2006 19:12

As the US begins to acknowledge the magnitude of its defeat in Iraq, the conflict looks more than ever like a speeded-up, scaled-down re-enactment of Vietnam. A tragedy that took a dozen years to unfold in south-east Asia has played out in less than four in Mesopotamia. Once again an intervention that sprang largely from idealistic, anti-totalitarian motives has gone awry because of an administration’s deceptions, incomprehension and incompetence. Once again the domino theory at the heart of the case has been disproved – and once again America finds itself looking for a way out that will not compound the catastrophe.

As in the final stages of the Vietnam war, the US faces the question: if it has lost, why is it still there? One answer is that President George W. Bush is a stubborn man. Even this week, Mr Bush was insisting it would not withdraw “until the mission is complete” – an apparent synonym for “when hell freezes over”. A better answer is that the US is now in Iraq to prevent genocide. Without a military force separating Sunni and Shia, the present savagery could turn Cambodian, with remaining secular democrats as the first victims. A power vacuum could provide a new operational base for al-Qaeda and severe sectarian violence could spiral into all-out civil war and regional conflict. As awful as it is now, Iraq could get much worse.

But if the mission in Iraq has devolved into preventing a bigger bloodbath, the US is the worst imaginable occupier. The presence of specifically American troops is itself instigating a great deal of the current violence. US forces, unlike most European ones, are not trained, skilled or experienced at peacekeeping. Iraq does need a foreign army. It just does not need an American army. This mismatch suggests a final disaster mitigation strategy: replace departing US troops with a more effective referee.

The obvious objection to this proposal is: who on earth wants to send troops to Iraq now? The remnants of Mr Bush’s coalition of the willing – Brits, Aussies, Fijians – are as eager to get home as Americans are. The United Nations ended its Iraqi operations following the horrific bombing of its Baghdad headquarters in 2003 and is not waiting for a return invitation. Asking for additional help in Iraq now is likely to provoke not just rejection, but hoots of scorn and derision.

Mr Bush deserves all that and more; but not having completely sapped the power of the US yet, he retains a few cards. Other countries should care about preventing the slaughter of innocents in Iraq, just as they should have in Rwanda and should yet in Darfur. Even if most nations will not make such a sacrifice on humanitarian grounds, they have a variety of self-interested reasons to help prevent total collapse in Iraq, including terrorism, refugees and oil. Because relations with the US are still important to nearly every country, America retains some actual leverage.

Where might more troops come from? The most willing providers would probably be “new” Europeans such as the Poles, who remain eager to demonstrate their co-operative capabilities and earn cash. Muslim troops might come from neighbouring Jordan and Turkey, which have obvious stakes in preventing the refugee crisis that would attend violent partition. Western European nations would be reluctant, but possibly willing to contribute when faced with the consequences of inaction. For France and Germany, the bargain would involve Mr Bush admitting, at least implicitly, that his previous unilateralism was bad and wrong. We could call this a coalition of the grudging.

Given the obstacles to action by the Security Council and the limitations on blue-helmeted peacekeepers, putting such a collation together under UN auspices is a non-starter – though the UN could eventually play an expanding role as the conflict settled down. For the more intensely military phase, the only real choice is Nato. A Nato-led deployment in Iraq could follow its model in Afghanistan, where a 32,000 person Nato-plus-11 force is controlling an insurgency, sustaining a weak but viable government and preventing multi-party civil war.

There are, of course, enormous obstacles to raising such a force. But a mission to save Iraq from doom would fit Nato’s growing scope and evolving post-cold war doctrine, a subject under discussion this week in Riga. This new mandate includes peacekeeping projects, counter-terrorism and dealing with instability spawned by failing states. With the US now essentially incapacitated by its mistakes, an effective military consortium of the world’s democracies – which is what Nato is evolving toward – is more necessary than ever.

Where is the indefatigable Richard Holbrooke when you need him? Mustering such a force and negotiating its rules of engagement would be a heroic diplomatic undertaking, as it was in Bosnia. A Nato agreement to step in would have to piggyback on a Dayton-like grand compromise in which the leading Iraqi parties agreed to stop beheading each other in exchange for international aid and security guarantees. It is a long shot, to be sure, but even the original foreign policy realist Brent Scowcroft has argued for a plan of this sort. Having failed to internationalise the Iraq problem on our way in, it may not be too late to internationalise it on our way out.


The writer is editor of Slate.com


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
__________________

__________________
all_i_want 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 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