US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 40 - 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 07-14-2008, 12:13 AM   #586
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Well, Bush administration policy is withdrawal only when conditions on the ground warrent it.



and no one ever talks about how utterly and totally vague this is, and how 60+ permanent bases built in Iraq don't seem to show much faith in the "improvement" in conditions on the ground. in 10 years? 50? 100? McCain compares Iraq to Korea and Germany. is this in our security interests -- a permanent American imperial presence in Mesopotamia? to do what, exactly? contain and attack Iran? occupations have a difficult way of ever really ending, no matter what the "conditions on the ground" are at any given point. they are always a morass, always a quagmire, always quicksand, and just as the Bush administration has continued to find ways to move the goal posts to determine progress, has fabricated new and improved justifications for the war to begin with, why would they not continue to fabricate new and improved reasons as to why "conditions on the ground" are still not suitable for a real withdrawal?

and suddenly, just this week, we have Bush moving to the Obama position. instead of endless, undefined occupation, we have this:

Quote:
U.S. considers increasing pace of Iraq pullout
By Steven Lee Myers
Sunday, July 13, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.

One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there.

More American and allied troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May and June, a trend that has continued this month.

Although no decision has been made, by the time President George W. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn or at least scheduled for withdrawal, the officials said.

The desire to move more quickly reflects the view of many in the Pentagon who want to ease the strain on the military but also to free more troops for Afghanistan and potentially other missions.

The most optimistic course of events would still leave 120,000 to 130,000 American troops in Iraq, down from the peak of 170,000 late last year after Bush ordered what became known as the "surge" of additional forces. Any troop reductions announced in the heat of the presidential election could blur the sharp differences between the candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, over how long to stay in Iraq. But the political benefit might go more to McCain than Obama. McCain is an avid supporter of the current strategy in Iraq. Any reduction would indicate that that strategy has worked and could defuse antiwar sentiment among voters.

Even as the two candidates argue over the wisdom of the war and keeping American troops there, security in Iraq has improved vastly, as has the confidence of Iraq's government and military and police, raising the prospect of additional reductions that were barely conceivable a year ago. While officials caution that the relative calm is fragile, violence and attacks on American-led forces have dropped to the lowest levels since early 2004.

Obama has said since the beginning that we need more troops in Afghanistan.

Bush now agrees.

this is a total vindication of everything that Obama has said about Iraq, and Afghanistan, from the beginning. it also speaks to the enormous bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, refugee crisis, and the billions upon billions spent for ... what, really? it also speaks to the fact that the framework for a withdrawal has sent signals to the Iraqis that perhaps the US actually *isn't* thinking about a permanent occupation. thus, US military cooperation with the Iraqi government becomes much more viable when both have a set goal -- eek, a timetable -- to work towards. the problem has been the Bush/McCain looming shadow of endless occupation. when the hegemonic superpower sets the terms and conditions, and the right to endlessly reset said terms and conditions -- based on things such as domestic policy, petty score keeping, the need to beat home the "appeasement/dolschstoss" narrative and have one more go at Vietnam-era narratives -- there's really not much incentive for the Iraqis themselves to start to work things out for themselves.

so, it's less "the surge" that's brought about political confidence. but more the light at the end of the dark, dark Bush/McCain tunnel. the end, for Maliki, to holding troops an contractors immune to any prosecution for crimes committed in Iraq -- an actual return of the rule of law.

but be warned. Maliki's confidence could be little more than a repackaging.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 12:16 AM   #587
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I don't disagree, I don't believed it is justified.


i will plead guilty to a creative overreaction to your comment.

it just felt like yet another "kid" characterization of Obama. and your questions about the Senator are so relentlessly framed to be patronizing, as if there's some kind of subtle resentment going on.

that may be more psychoanalysis than can be reasonably made.

but it has been consistent.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 12:25 AM   #588
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
On the Iraq issue. Given the 4000+ U.S. servicepeople and countless Iraqis who have lost their lives, the lack of WMD, is it too hard to admit Illinois state senator Obama was completely right on his position not to invade Iraq?

And since the U.S. committed to war, too hard to admit Senator McCain has been (mostly) right on the conduct of it, and that he's being proved right on the surge?

i appreciate the fair-minded attempt to draw an important inference.

however, i think it's important to note that McCain hasn't been all that stronga dissenter from Bush's tactics in Iraq as he likes to say (or like what Carly Fiorina was saying this morning on MTP). but Iraq remains, and it seems you a gree, a fundamental error from the beginning, a bad idea. period. his advocacy of more troops in Iraq -- which is currently viewed as the "correct" stance in regard to whatever successes there might be of "the surge" -- does not in anyway excuse his place as an ardent supporter of notions of the Axis of Evil or attacking any and all rogue states to calling those who disagree appeasers and championing the cowboy diplomacy that characterized Bush's foreign policy from 9/12/01 to the 2006 elections.



Quote:
Nuance shumance!!! We all know objectively what their rhetoric has been for years, and our own rhetoric in this forum. It hasn't been all that nuanced. But I really hope the end strategy is something in between the perceived indefinite occupation versus the perceived quick withdrawal. The last week or two have encouraged me this will be the case with either candidate.

the latter part of your post i agree with, but as someone who thinks -- perhaps self-servingly, perhaps self-deludingly -- that he does try to inject nuance, i suppose i feel a bit disheartened by this un-nuanced portrayal of many posters in here?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:18 AM   #589
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:43 AM
.
Quote:
My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMA
The New York Times (Op-Ed), July 14



The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:20 AM   #590
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and no one ever talks about how utterly and totally vague this is,
Its been discussed at length in here what conditions need to be like in Iraq for the US to start withdrawing. The Iraqi military and government must have the capacity to replace any services being provided by any US combat brigade that is withdrawn. They must be able to sustain the progress that has been made and be able to continue the development process.


Quote:
how 60+ permanent bases built in Iraq don't seem to show much faith in the "improvement" in conditions on the ground.
I would like for you just once to name one of these bases and explain why its "permanent". In case you did not know already, the US military has to have bases given the logistical requirements of deploying 1 to two dozen combat brigades, 2/3s of them being heavy armor brigades. US bases in Iraq are required for the scale and length of such a deployment. The bases are no more permanent than the bases the United States currently has for its deployment in Afghanistan.

Quote:
is this in our security interests -- a permanent American imperial presence in Mesopotamia? to do what, exactly?
No one has ever planned to permanently keep troops in Iraq. The Bush administration initial plans for Iraq projected that half of the troops would be home by the summer of 2004, but that was reveresed because of the insurgency.

Its in the security interest of the United States and the rest of the planet, that Iraq successfully develops its security, economic, political structures and environment. How could withdrawing prior to the successful development of the Iraqi government and military be in the security interest of the United States?

Quote:
contain and attack Iran?
The United States does not have to be in Iraq in order to attack Iran.

Quote:
occupations have a difficult way of ever really ending, no matter what the "conditions on the ground" are at any given point. they are always a morass, always a quagmire, always quicksand,
Thats how you would describe US occupations in Bosnia and Kosovo?


Quote:
and just as the Bush administration has continued to find ways to move the goal posts to determine progress
The problem there is absurd and unrealistic expections of many Democrats who would like to find a way of justifiying immediate withdrawal.

Quote:
has fabricated new and improved justifications for the war to begin with
Another myth. The primary justification for the removal of Saddam remains the same today as it was prior to the war and the need to rebuild Iraq after Saddam's removal in order to insure the stability and security of the region is the same as well.


Quote:
why would they not continue to fabricate new and improved reasons as to why "conditions on the ground" are still not suitable for a real withdrawal?
The Bush administration, US military, and US State Department are not frabricating any of this nor are they fabricating a need to stay in Iraq longer than would be necessary. No one wants to stay in Iraq longer than is necessary just as no one wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than would be necessary. Sorry, but Bush does not need either country for the hypothetical attack on Iran.



Quote:
and suddenly, just this week, we have Bush moving to the Obama position. instead of endless, undefined occupation, we have this:
The withdrawal that the Bush administration is considering is dependent upon conditions on the ground and the need for sustainable security. Its the position the Bush administration has had from DAY 1. Obama's position for at least 18 months has been to start withdrawing combat brigades from Iraq immediately without any prerequisites for stability and security and to have all US combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months.

Quote:
Obama has said since the beginning that we need more troops in Afghanistan.

Bush now agrees.
Thats actually incorrect. Bush administration has been increasing the US force levels in Afghanistan for several years now. But what the Bush administration has not wanted to do was to ever be increasing force levels in Afghanistan at the expense of security and stability in Iraq. That is still the case today and any force level increase in Afghanistan will not be occuring if it sacrifices the progress and continued progress in Iraq under Bush or a future McCain administration.

Quote:
this is a total vindication of everything that Obama has said about Iraq, and Afghanistan, from the beginning.
If Bush or McCain withdraws US troops from Iraq to either go home or go to Afghanistan, it will only be done if the prerequisites for withdrawal from Iraq are met first. Obama has never had such prerequisites so I don't see how that would vindicate any policy that Obama has had on the issue to date.

Quote:
it also speaks to the enormous bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, refugee crisis, and the billions upon billions spent for ... what, really?
Removing Saddam and rebuilding Iraq after his removal were both required for the security and stability of the region which is really the planets economic lifeline.

Quote:
it also speaks to the fact that the framework for a withdrawal has sent signals to the Iraqis that perhaps the US actually *isn't* thinking about a permanent occupation.
The US has never thought about a permanent occupation and most Iraqi's in the government that the United States is working with have been concerned about the United States withdrawing to soon and the country collapsing. It might convince some Saddamist and Mahdi Army extremist who may have mistakenly believed that the United States was planning a permanent occupation, that the US does have plans to leave.


Quote:
thus, US military cooperation with the Iraqi government becomes much more viable when both have a set goal -- eek, a timetable -- to work towards. the problem has been the Bush/McCain looming shadow of endless occupation.
Any talk of withdrawal is because of the success that the Surge in US military forces has brought to Iraq as well as the continued development of the Iraqi security forces. If Barack Obama had his way, the Surge would not have happened, violenced would not have been reduced and would have potentially exploded as US forces left the country. The United States could be looking at the total collapse of the Iraqi government and military with consequences that could potentially force the United States to invade Iraq again.

Quote:
when the hegemonic superpower sets the terms and conditions, and the right to endlessly reset said terms and conditions -- based on things such as domestic policy, petty score keeping, the need to beat home the "appeasement/dolschstoss" narrative and have one more go at Vietnam-era narratives -- there's really not much incentive for the Iraqis themselves to start to work things out for themselves.
United States policy in Iraq over the past 5 years has been based on US security needs there and nothing else. Iraqi's have been fighting and dying for 5 years now to help rebuild the country and defeat Al Quada, the remainder of Saddam's regime, Shia militia's and meddling by Iran and Syria. The idea that Iraqi's have not had any incentive to work things out is just absurd.

Quote:
so, it's less "the surge" that's brought about political confidence. but more the light at the end of the dark, dark Bush/McCain tunnel.
Thats what you would like it to be, but that is not the case by any objective examination of events over the past 18 months. Political confidence and progress on many issues has come about because violence has been greatly reduced. The reason that violence has been reduced is because of the successful counterinsurgency tactics of the US military as well as the surge in the number of troops. Even staunch opponents of the Surge are addmitting, given the obvious success, that it has worked.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:28 AM   #591
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
.

Well, interesting to see that Barack Obama has yet to "refine" is policy on Iraq insisting withdrawing immediately without conditions, and continues to mourn the removal of Saddam from power and believe that the region and world would be safer if he were still there.

Perhaps he might learn a few things on his new trip to Iraq from these men:

YouTube - Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan is Impossible



Barack Obama claimed that the Surge would make violence in Iraq worse. But the results have been exactly the opposite of what he claimed it would be.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:19 AM   #592
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
and continues to mourn the removal of Saddam from power and believe that the region and world would be safer if he were still there.
Do you have plans to get taken seriously in the future?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:00 AM   #593
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Do you have plans to get taken seriously in the future?



see, i actually have given up. the actual give-and-take discussion thing.

it really is futile.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:21 AM   #594
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 09:43 PM
and John McCain can go eff himself over this one:

Quote:
In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has left many Republicans unsettled about his ideological bearings by toggling between reliably conservative issues like support for gun owners’ rights and an emphasis on centrist messages like his willingness to tackle global warming and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Those tensions were apparent in the interview as well, as Mr. McCain offered a variety of answers — sometimes nuanced in their phrasing, sometimes not — about his views on social issues.

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. “I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption,” he said.


better an orphan than raised by the 'mos!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:27 AM   #595
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and John McCain can go eff himself over this one:
better an orphan than raised by the 'mos!
I read that this morning. It's all the more offensive to me that someone who has adopted feels that way.

I just don't get that "both parents are important". Obviously he means that it has to be a MAN and a WOMAN. It's all about a happy and healthy relationship and good parenting, not gender. How do we explain away all the straight parents in miserable marriages and poor parenting that leads to problems for kids? We just pretend that away I guess.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 12:46 PM   #596
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMA
The New York Times (Op-Ed), July 14.


anyway, this is an excellent op-ed. it, again, blows holes through claims that Obama has rescinded on his plan to bring troops home next March, or that he's somehow "flip-flopped" (what an awful word to enter the political language).

it's all very clear:

Obama has always wanted a timed, cautious withdrawal over a period of months (not years, or decades). Obama has always said that the general timeframe for this will be about 18 months (give or taken, depending on conditions and logistics, which only makes sense). the only change is to when this withdrawal starts. because Congress has failed in it's efforts to begin withdrawal, we now have to wait until a President Obama can start on January 21.

the Iraqi government has moved towards this decision. as we saw yesterday, even the Bush administration has moved towards this position.

how long are we going to buy this "victory" vs. "defeat" false choice?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:19 PM   #597
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Do you have plans to get taken seriously in the future?
Have you ever read what Obama's has said about the invasion of Iraq?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:33 PM   #598
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Have you ever read what Obama's has said about the invasion of Iraq?
Yes.

Can you show me some "mourning"?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:33 PM   #599
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
anyway, this is an excellent op-ed. it, again, blows holes through claims that Obama has rescinded on his plan to bring troops home next March, or that he's somehow "flip-flopped" (what an awful word to enter the political language).
I agree, it appears he is still sticking to starting and immediate withdrawal irregardless of conditions on the ground in Iraq.

Quote:
Obama has always wanted a timed, cautious withdrawal over a period of months (not years, or decades). Obama has always said that the general timeframe for this will be about 18 months (give or taken, depending on conditions and logistics, which only makes sense).
Obama has always had a timed based withdrawal plan rather than a conditions based one as the Bush administration, Iraqi government, and US military have had.

Quote:
we now have to wait until a President Obama can start on January 21.
Provided a. He wins the election in November which is getting tighter by the day now. b. he does not "refine" his policy.


Quote:
the Iraqi government has moved towards this decision. as we saw yesterday, even the Bush administration has moved towards this position.
Show me where the Iraqi government and the Bush administration have in any way ever supported the idea of withdrawing coalition forces from Iraq without first insuring that Iraq is stable and secure and that the Iraqi security forces will be able to handle and take over from any US combat brigades that are withdrawn?


Quote:
how long are we going to buy this "victory" vs. "defeat" false choice?
So whats Obama's withdrawal time table for Afghanistan?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:37 PM   #600
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Yes.

Can you show me some "mourning"?
Continuously claiming that the removal of Saddam from power by the US military is the worst foreign policy mistake in US history and that it has made the United States less safe.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow 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 09:43 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