the widening political chasm between the US and other nations - 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 07-11-2002, 01:22 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 04:57 PM
the widening political chasm between the US and other nations

yesterday at the UN security council meetings canadian representative, ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker, led complaints regarding the American decision to not support the International Criminal Court. The American's abandoned the global plan because it was not able to ensure it's own troops would be exempted from prosecution by the court. the bush administrations attempts to place its troops above and beyond the grips of the law have proven, not surprisingly, vacuous with many committed participants to the international court.

recently president bush's mideast plan was recepted by his fellow leaders with approvals ranging from very reluctant to lukewarm.

as the months past support for the 'war and terrorism' in afghanistan gradually began to decrease as public opinion began to view the war as futile and a waste...eventually leading to the hi-profile and needless deaths of civilians.

while the u.s. has been on the outside of the kyoto accord, and now canada is wavering also, many other nations remain committed to the environmental plan.

this recent string of events suggests that we are perhaps witnessing an increasing level of descension between the united states and it's allies. any thoughts?
__________________

__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 01:44 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:57 PM
no exact thoughts, just a feeling
and watching how the european union builds up an own army...
the EADS... in compare to u.s. weapon industry...
then, you know, the european convent lets see how (un)succesful they will be...
on the other hand, i dont think the gap will widen that much, you know, england has a very long lasting trans atlantic relation...

just a feeling that around 2005 things will be - different.
reorganized, globalized, even more huxley-ized; it seems to go that direction,

but dont ask me, i dunno.

*dark shades*
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 02:29 PM   #3
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Re: the widening political chasm between the US and other nations

Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
yesterday at the UN security council meetings canadian representative, ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker, led complaints regarding the American decision to not support the International Criminal Court. The American's abandoned the global plan because it was not able to ensure it's own troops would be exempted from prosecution by the court. the bush administrations attempts to place its troops above and beyond the grips of the law have proven, not surprisingly, vacuous with many committed participants to the international court.

recently president bush's mideast plan was recepted by his fellow leaders with approvals ranging from very reluctant to lukewarm.

as the months past support for the 'war and terrorism' in afghanistan gradually began to decrease as public opinion began to view the war as futile and a waste...eventually leading to the hi-profile and needless deaths of civilians.

while the u.s. has been on the outside of the kyoto accord, and now canada is wavering also, many other nations remain committed to the environmental plan.

this recent string of events suggests that we are perhaps witnessing an increasing level of descension between the united states and it's allies. any thoughts?
The United Nations.. as well as The Kyoto Treaty, as well as this new International Court are just ways for the world to take the US down.. to siphon away some of our SuperPower.. You'll laugh, but this is the truth.. You say 'Above the Law'.. We have our own laws for military criminals.

Bush's MidEast Plan was brilliant.. It was lukewarm in Europe because the socialist EU leaders have their hands down Arafat's Pants and Bush's plan calls for, no arafat.. and Democracy as well. It is practically an unattainable goal for Palestine, but it's what needs to happen outside of a decisive military victory for peace to come.

The Kyoto treaty has a nice goal, but the means to that outlined in the treaty are Unattainable without drastic consequences.. Yes.. Canada and Australia have not signed it yet either. We are not the only one.

It is not dissension from the other nations, it's just our unwillingness to bend over for the European Union and take it up the ass.. If I must be blunt.


It's a dangerous 'slope' to a one world government.. Hopefully we'll keep Hillary out of office as well.. as she's big on this too..


L.Unplugged
__________________
"When People Feel Uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who is Strong and Wrong than somebody who is Weak and Right."

--Bill Clinton
Lemonite is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 02:38 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:57 PM
Re: Re: the widening political chasm between the US and other nations

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite


The socialist EU leaders have their hands down Arafat's Pants
L.Unplugged
Mmmkay... Ill send this one to Tony Blair, he might like it.
You know what we love you for, America? Your diplomacy.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 02:38 PM   #5
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 08:57 PM
I'm not surprised that the gap is widening between the U.S. and it's allies. As long as the U.S. continues to threaten other nations with war in the name of "defeating terrorism" and "rooting out evil", as long as the U.S. continues to force Western civilization/culture down the throats of unwilling participants, as long as the U.S. forks out the lowest dollar amount of foreign aid of any industrialized nation, as long as the U.S. imposes economic sanctions on "evil" regimes that result in malnourishment, recession, and death, as long as the U.S. bombs and kills innocent civilians without taking personal responsibility, as long as the U.S. seeks double standards in the U.N and World Court, as long as the U.S. strives to be the world's policeman...well, as long as the U.S. does these things the divide will only get that much greater.

The U.S. is a bully...and nobody likes a bully. This is why I don't believe we'll see any shift in the feelings of our allies anytime soon-at least not until we have a new administration in town that understands we need to adopt a new approach to foreign policy.
__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 03:08 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 09:57 PM
Re: Re: the widening political chasm between the US and other nations

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
The United Nations.. as well as The Kyoto Treaty, as well as this new International Court are just ways for the world to take the US down.. to siphon away some of our SuperPower..
This doesn't make any sense Lemonite. We've seen that almost every country who ratified the Kyoto Treaty are prepared to take a step back in their economic growth in order to reach the goals which are set. They are still prepared to do that -even after the US waved off their responsibilities-, weakening their economic position compared to the US'.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
Bush's MidEast Plan was brilliant.. It was lukewarm in Europe because the socialist EU leaders have their hands down Arafat's Pants and Bush's plan calls for, no arafat.. and Democracy as well.
Brilliant for a man like Bush maybe... But democracy and demanding that people get rid of their present leaders don't go hand in hand.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 03:19 PM   #7
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Re: Re: Re: the widening political chasm between the US and other nations

Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


This doesn't make any sense Lemonite. We've seen that almost every country who ratified the Kyoto Treaty are prepared to take a step back in their economic growth in order to reach the goals which are set. They are still prepared to do that -even after the US waved off their responsibilities-, weakening their economic position compared to the US'.

'Step Back'.. that's the whole point. But just another point... 'China' and 'No Regulation' is, I think an even bigger Issue. The Kyoto Treaty itself is also a generally flawed way to attain reduced emissions in the real world.... but back to the thread.

Anyways.. whenhiphopdrovethebigcars.. Yah, I'll admit when I fire off a bad one, but let's get serious here.. I had a nice warm Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki waiting for me and that was teh priority at the moment.. either way, the point got made.

L.Unplugged
__________________
"When People Feel Uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who is Strong and Wrong than somebody who is Weak and Right."

--Bill Clinton
Lemonite is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 03:29 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 09:57 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: the widening political chasm between the US and other nations

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite


'Step Back'.. that's the whole point. But just another point... 'China' and 'No Regulation' is, I think an even bigger Issue. The Kyoto Treaty itself is also a generally flawed way to attain reduced emissions in the real world.... but back to the thread.
So are you under the impression that the entire world is conspiring against the US in order to strengthen China's economic position? The countries who currently ratified the Treaty are responsible for 55% percent of greenhouse emissions. Together with the US that would make almost 80% of the total amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. That's worth cutting back on, even if China doesn't participate. Even if it wasn't, I'm not sure what that would have to do with your little conspiracy theory.

So do you know of a better way to reduce greenhouse emissions than the Kyoto Protocol? I'm sure everybody would like to know this...
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 04:13 PM   #9
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the widening political chasm between the US and other nations

Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


So are you under the impression that the entire world is conspiring against the US in order to strengthen China's economic position?

So do you know of a better way to reduce greenhouse emissions than the Kyoto Protocol? I'm sure everybody would like to know this...
Did you even read my post..

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
But just another point... 'China' and 'No Regulation' is, I think an even bigger Issue.
It does say 'Another point in there'.. I enjoy your sarcasm, but please be accurate if you're going to try make some outlandish statement and attribute it to me.

So you're under the impression that 'something' regardless of how flawed, or bad it may be.. is better than nothing. That's interesting. I think Americans just got through pounding Bush for signing CFR.. 'Something' when it was an unconstitutional bill that is not going to aid in anything, we may as well have stayed with nothing.

In regards to the Global Warming Phenomena, I dont' even believe that we are the cause of this, our 'Greenhouse Emissions' being the culprit... And we can go into an indepth argument where you pull out evidence showing these models that we do cause it, and I'll pull out evidence showing we're not the cause.. and ultimately waste our time. But I was in favor of Bush's plan he layed out as it was a 'something' that is on the right path..

"I'm sure everybody would like to know this... " Hahah.. Well then, If 'EverybodY' would like to know.. Hahaha..

This has been discussed before on this forum.. refer to the archives.

L. Unplugged
__________________
"When People Feel Uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who is Strong and Wrong than somebody who is Weak and Right."

--Bill Clinton
Lemonite is offline  
Old 07-11-2002, 11:29 PM   #10
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
I'm not surprised that the gap is widening between the U.S. and it's allies. As long as the U.S. continues to threaten other nations with war in the name of "defeating terrorism" and "rooting out evil", as long as the U.S. continues to force Western civilization/culture down the throats of unwilling participants, as long as the U.S. forks out the lowest dollar amount of foreign aid of any industrialized nation, as long as the U.S. imposes economic sanctions on "evil" regimes that result in malnourishment, recession, and death, as long as the U.S. bombs and kills innocent civilians without taking personal responsibility, as long as the U.S. seeks double standards in the U.N and World Court, as long as the U.S. strives to be the world's policeman...well, as long as the U.S. does these things the divide will only get that much greater.

The U.S. is a bully...and nobody likes a bully. This is why I don't believe we'll see any shift in the feelings of our allies anytime soon-at least not until we have a new administration in town that understands we need to adopt a new approach to foreign policy.
hahahahahahahahahahahahah


Looks like you found someone to blame

thanks for the laugh anyway
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 07-12-2002, 12:54 AM   #11
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:57 PM

I don't really think this thread really deserves much further discussion, but I'd like to make a few comments on the International Criminal Court.. point out a few of the misconceptions.. even stated in the original post of this thread..

1. The US is not even party to the treaty that establishes this court.

2. India and China have not signed this thing.. Russia has not ratified it.

3. America wants to protect many of our 'Peacekeepers' from Bosnia who would be tried by this court for War Crimes.. Yes you read correctly.. PEACEKEEPERS.

4. If this court is going to try our peacekeepers.. then we'll just ultimately end up pulling every one of our peacekeeping missions.. Yah.. See how the world treats you then.

L.Unplugged
__________________
"When People Feel Uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who is Strong and Wrong than somebody who is Weak and Right."

--Bill Clinton
Lemonite is offline  
Old 07-12-2002, 03:34 AM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
3. America wants to protect many of our 'Peacekeepers' from Bosnia who would be tried by this court for War Crimes.. Yes you read correctly.. PEACEKEEPERS.
Why would they be tried? Which war crimes have they committed (and no, just being there is not a war crime. This is a UN mission so they are not there illegally)? As long as they do not commit actual war crimes why should they worry?

C ya!

Marty

P.S. I think Lemonite's first post (including the part he quotes from Kobayashi) perfectly illustrates the differences between the world view of US citizens and non-US citizens.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-12-2002, 08:31 AM   #13
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:57 PM

April 15, 2002
"An International Criminal Court Is Still a Bad Idea"--An Op-Ed by Prof. Ruth Wedgwood

(This essay was originally published in the Monday, April 15, 2002, edition of the Wall Street Journal.)

An International Criminal Court Is Still a Bad Idea
By Ruth Wedgwood, professor of law

In "Headwind," a thriller by John Nance, a former U.S. president is doomed to a traveler's nightmare. Facing an international arrest warrant for a botched American raid on a Peruvian drug factory, he is forced to flee by air from country to country, never touching down for more than a few minutes.

The novel isn't available at the U.N. bookshop. But its underlying plot has been advanced, some would argue, by the U.N. signing ceremony last Thursday, announcing a new International Criminal Court with jurisdiction to pursue heads of state. The new court claims to exercise universal jurisdiction over the laws of war, as well as crimes against humanity, even against countries that haven't ratified the treaty.

Most of our NATO allies are joining the court. This may stem from the European belief that law is largely symbolic, and that military deterrence can be left to the Americans. With 220,000 troops deployed overseas, the U.S. has been more skeptical of the court and its claims -- and rightly so.

ICC enthusiasts fail to admit that the law of armed conflict is more indeterminate than they would like. There are indeed some clear-cut taboos acknowledged by all honorable members of the profession of arms. The enemy's soldiers must be permitted to surrender, so long as the circumstances are safe. Battlefield prisoners cannot be abused. But there are other questions in warfighting that are more contentious, especially against unconventional adversaries and with changing technology.

For example, the principles of "discrimination" and "proportionality" require that one distinguish between military and civilian targets, and avoid undue civilian harm. In World War II, bridges, ports, oil depots, refineries, and electrical plants were considered valid targets because they contributed to the war effort. But in Kosovo, one saw how the ground could shift. Yugoslavia sued in the World Court charging that NATO's attack on infrastructure unduly burdened civilians and was illegal. Other war crimes alleged included the Allied use of uranium-tipped weapons -- even though a jacket of depleted uranium is the standard way to penetrate the hard skin of tanks and armored personnel carriers -- as well as the scatter of unexploded ordnance. They even claimed that NATO planes were in the wrong for flying above 15,000 feet.

The U.S. eluded the Yugoslav suit on jurisdictional grounds, but the case is still pending against some of our allies. It is not surprising that Washington is reluctant to have its warfighting methods controlled by law professors and foreign magistrates appointed to a new international criminal court.

The standard U.N. answer is that there is nothing to fear, because of the buffer called "complementarity." This refers to the claim that the new criminal court can intervene only when a country is "unwilling or unable genuinely" to handle the case on its own. But the U.S. is hardly likely to prosecute its own pilots for faithfully carrying out the air attacks assigned to them. Where there are good faith differences in warfighting doctrine, complementarity provides no protection against magistrates from abroad.

The court also may be asked to determine when it is legal to use force -- and what constitutes "aggression." Yet responsible states may feel morally compelled to rely upon new ideas of humanitarian intervention (e.g. Kosovo) and preemptive self-defense against weapons of mass destruction, despite the disapproval of academics.

All of this static was unnecessary. One original conception for a standing criminal court was to take cases referred by the Security Council (where the U.S. has a veto). But NGOs were insistent that big power politics had no relevance to international courts. They did not stop to ask, of course, how a ruling would be enforced without major powers willing to provide economic, diplomatic, and military support.

Like much in life, the court project started out innocently. Unable to agree upon a robust military response to the ethnic massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda, the Security Council acted to create two special-purpose criminal tribunals to punish the masterminds of the ethnic cleansing and genocide. Those courts have operated in the Netherlands and in Tanzania, with U.S. support, and have returned indictments against senior authors of the crimes, including Slobodan Milosevic.

It would have been better to gauge the performance of the ad hoc courts before proceeding further. These tribunals have gained only limited credibility on the ground among affected civil war factions, and committed some notable lapses in standards of criminal procedure. But enthusiasms are as common to international organizations as to Wall Street. Like the proposal for perpetual peace, the proposal for universal justice was too tempting to pass up, and the U.N. embarked on ill-fated negotiations.

The attempt to patch things up was blocked by the same hydraulics. Former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy pressured the 1998 diplomatic conference to deliver a completed treaty after a hurried five-week negotiation. A manic scene on the final evening, where a complete treaty text was not yet available, saw the conference chairman accepting French and Russian requests for compromise language, but rejecting the central U.S. demand for protection against third-party jurisdiction.

So we are left at the present impasse. The Senate has warned that the court should not dream of arresting Americans when we have refused to join. The Bush administration may well "unsign" the treaty -- revoking the signature that Bill Clinton impetuously added in the waning days of his presidency.

At the U.N., the only hope for avoiding a Potemkin court lies in new prudence in the exercise of its powers. The principles of Westphalia may seem remote to "mundians" (to use Robert Lansing's phrase). But the world is dangerous -- and cudgels, as well as sensible norms, are necessary to protect the peace. The application of the law of war involves both military expertise and the moral responsibility of sovereign states.


Ms. Wedgwood is a professor of international law at Yale and Johns Hopkins University.


And another quote from another article...

"Washington says that a signature would be the first step on a slippery slope, once it had conceded that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction, the way would be open for a foreign prosecutor to frivolously accuse a US soldier (Or Defense SEcretary for that matter) of War Crimes.

"Americans fear that their children run th risk of preosecutions in foreign courts brought by grandstanding magistrates looking for easy popularity... This case would be attacked by Europeans because it demands that the US betreated as SPECIAL. IN FACT, IT IS."
__________________
"When People Feel Uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who is Strong and Wrong than somebody who is Weak and Right."

--Bill Clinton
Lemonite is offline  
Old 07-12-2002, 08:46 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
point out a few of the misconceptions.. even stated in the original post of this thread..
lemonite, i am always grateful for your presence. you tell us all how everything is

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
1. The US is not even party to the treaty that establishes this court.
many countries which have endorsed the court are not party to the treaty that establishes the court. besides, this hasn't stopped the u.s. from entering other agreements.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
2. India and China have not signed this thing.. Russia has not ratified it.
yeah those are three countries, three large countries, none of them from the 'west'. the point was many american allies have joined and the american's are demanding they be proclaimed above and beyond others.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
3. America wants to protect many of our 'Peacekeepers' from Bosnia who would be tried by this court for War Crimes.. Yes you read correctly.. PEACEKEEPERS.
i'm sorry lemonite. i have a tough time wrapping my head around this logic...peacekeeping does not equal war crimes. if war crimes were committed they were committed. if peacekeepers do their job...they certainly wouldn't be committing war crimes. the icc's definition of war crimes certainly wouldn't be made to include peacekeeping duties. that is nonsensical...why would canada, renowned for its peacekeeping efforts be so eager to participate then.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite
4. If this court is going to try our peacekeepers.. then we'll just ultimately end up pulling every one of our peacekeeping missions.. Yah.. See how the world treats you then.
well by no means are american's the be-all and end-all of global peacekeeping but they are a key component. such a reaction, pulling all peacekeeping missions, would be a fitting response for a nation demanding to be placed on a pedastel above all the other nations involved.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 07-12-2002, 09:20 AM   #15
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi

lemonite, i am always grateful for your presence. you tell us all how everything is
Please don't patronize me.



[QUOTE]
yeah those are three countries, three large countries, none of them from the 'west'. the point was many american allies have joined and the american's are demanding they be proclaimed above and beyond others[QUOTE]
Read the above posted article and quotes.

[QUOTE]
i'm sorry lemonite. i have a tough time wrapping my head around this logic...peacekeeping does not equal war crimes. if war crimes were committed they were committed. if peacekeepers do their job...they certainly wouldn't be committing war crimes. the icc's definition of war crimes certainly wouldn't be made to include peacekeeping duties. that is nonsensical...why would canada, renowned for its peacekeeping efforts be so eager to participate then.
[QUOTE]
Because America is a Target... It sounds like this big conspiracy, but in all truths it is.. this treaty is nothing more than a back handed way to get into America's pockets. What's to stop some "limp wristed European socialist leader" from just pulling out accusations out of their ass on our 'peacekeepers'.. It's admirable that you are taking the idealistic side on this, but nothing ever works as you imagine it, or as it's supposed to be. And as a quote above.. what's to stop a War Crimes Accusation on a 'Secretary of Defense'.. Oh excuse me.. 'safeguards'.
I see we are at poles on this issue..

Quote:
well by no means are american's the be-all and end-all of global peacekeeping but they are a key component. such a reaction, pulling all peacekeeping missions, would be a fitting response for a nation demanding to be placed on a pedastel above all the other nations involved. [/B]
Key component?.. Don't insult your own intelligence.

From Time Magazine

"The failure of the Bush Administration is its inability to articulate why other countries profit from America's military power. No other nation, or group of nations, could conceivably replace the U.S. as the world's policeman; but like it or not, that American role will be played on American terms. Europeans should ask themselves whether, right now, the ICC is worth more than continued American engagement in the world. The answer is easy."
__________________

__________________
"When People Feel Uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who is Strong and Wrong than somebody who is Weak and Right."

--Bill Clinton
Lemonite 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 03:57 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