Why Iran? - 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 12-05-2007, 06:01 PM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:24 PM
nevermind.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 06:02 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
As much as Bush might be an idiot, and as sad as it is that he will get off of what he has done that easily, no, he didn't slaughter millions of people brutally, installed "killing fields", or did anything nearly that awful.
Guantanamo, the torture employed or the wars waged are far from making him the "worst dictator ever", and I'm sure you don't want him to go that far only to appoint him that title.

Worst American President might fit, but dictator really is far off.


You really think Al Quaeda started this whole crap because the guy in power was Bush?
They would have attacked on 9/11 even if it was Gore. Bush is doing a good job recruiting new terrorists for Al Quaeda, but it's not Bush why they have attacked, or might attack again. It's the Western way of living and their insane vision of having the world under their powers that's giving them wet dreams.
You can do what you want, Al Quaeda will always justify their massacres.

But you need an administration that is really trying to do something about it, not driving more people into joining that organisation.


very good post.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 06:10 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
The worst thing would be that people will actually respect him in the future like we respect, say, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.
I certainly won't. I'll think of these past 8 years as a time when a really crappy administration was in power, and I'll mention this to anybody down the line who thinks Bush was a good president. I fully agree, we should not forget the many screwups of this administration-if anything, we desperately need to learn from their mistakes so we can avoid making them again in the future. That said, I'm personally not going to go so far as to call Bush a dictator and equate him to Hitler. They aren't the same, sorry.

And honestly, Bush himself, I just think he's not that bright. He doesn't really scare me. It's the people AROUND him that I find most terrifying. I think they've been the ones who have really been running things these past few years-Bush may be the president, but I get the feeling he's the one doing what people around him tell him to do, not the other way around.

kellyahern, LOL, no kidding, I've found myself in agreement with Robertson on our current foreign policy as well...it's bizarre.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 12-05-2007, 07:12 PM   #94
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Plan that Tehran first floated in 2005 could satisfy all sides

By Bennett Ramberg
Christian Science Monitor, December 6 (Opinion)


How do you say "sorry" in Farsi? That's the question the White House may need to answer in the wake of this week's stunning reversal of official US opinion about Iran's nuclear ambitions. But now that US intelligence believes Iran halted its nuclear arms effort in 2003, Bush administration hawks must do more than wipe the egg off their faces. They must still find a way to resolve the remaining impasse over uranium enrichment.

The bad news? The current course of ratcheted-up sanctions won't work. The good news? There is a practical plan available that all sides could find acceptable. The surprising source for this plan is Iran. In 2005 and 2006, Tehran called for "international partnerships" and "joint ownership" of fuel-cycle facilities that would allow complete transparency through co-management of enrichment plants. Reluctant to legitimize Tehran's enrichment foothold, the US ignored the overture. But, unable to get support from China and Russia for more economic penalties, Washington today doesn't have any practical alternative.

Such a plan is critical, because danger persists, despite the headlines from the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. This year's NIE does indeed reverse the NIE's 2005 finding "that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." The new conclusion: Iran's "halt" of its dedicated nuclear weapons program began in fall 2003. The report gives a subtle boost to the Bush administration: Tehran "was halted primarily in response to [undefined] international pressure." Since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) struggled with Iran in 2003 to come clean about its nuclear activities, Washington's invasion of Iraq arguably scared the Mullahs into stopping their weapons work, much as the Iraq war also frightened Libya to give up its bomb making program. Looking forward, however, the US intelligence community concedes that "we do not know whether it [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." The estimators warn that Tehran will continue to expand the number of enrichment centrifuges. Today, Iran operates 3000 machines despite "significant technical problems." In time, it proposes to have 50,000 which, un-tethered, will provide it with the option to go nuclear.

Recognizing this, the West spent some five years attempting to induce the Mullahs to end the enterprise. Initially, the European Community offered carrots--access to nuclear reactor assistance, better diplomatic relations, and expanded commerce. Iran toyed with the Europeans, suspending enrichment only to resume arguing that it had the "unalienable" right to peaceful nuclear technology under the nonproliferation treaty. That the enrichment plan made no economic sense--Iran still does not have even one operating nuclear power plant--was beside the point.

So, what can the West do now? The latest intelligence suggests that Iran poses no imminent threat, so the military option to stop the centrifuges is probably off the table. This leaves two traditional alternatives: Accept Tehran's peaceful nuclear claims or exact more onerous economic sanctions. The first approach--acceptance--is not acceptable. Tehran has persistently and wrongly denied that it has violated international safeguards. According to the IAEA's November report, it still fails to provide "credible assurances" that it does not have secret nuclear activities. Because "knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing," the West has little confidence that it can allow the Mullahs to continue enrichment with its proliferation portent.

Can sanctions bring enrichment to a halt? Not so far, and the NIE will make the challenge to mobilize countries to oppose the program more difficult. The Security Council's December 2006 restraints on international fuel cycle assistance made little difference. Penalties endorsed by the Council in March 2007--expansion of the list of frozen Iranian assets, a call for "vigilance and restraint" in the sale of heavy weapons to Iran, and avoidance of new grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans--failed again. And new and proposed actions--suspension of bank lending and technology--appear unlikely to move a regime that has broad popular support for civil nuclear energy.

This leaves Tehran's nuclear tethering proposal. Fleshed out, the "international joint ownership" and "international partnerships" Tehran advocated would include co-decisionmaking and facility access that assures Iran's nuclear fuel cycle remains on the straight and narrow to avoid a weapons breakout. A new door would open to resolve the enrichment impasse if two things happened. First, tethering must be linked to Iran's promised ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol, allowing inspectors unimpeded visits to all suspicious nuclear enterprises. Second, it must be tied further to Security Council adoption of automatic onerous punitive measures to combat cheating--a military blockade of the country, for example.

Those who would oppose this strategy by claiming that it would enhance Iran's weapons breakout capacity ought to acknowledge that today's untethered program poses the greater risk. Tethering offers a practical means to ensure that Iran does not reverse its 2003 decision. In the process, it can assure that the apology Iran demands remains warranted.



Bennett Ramberg served in the State Department during President George H.W. Bush's term. He is the author of three books on international security.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 08:04 PM   #95
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:24 AM
From an interview today in Salon with Flynt Leverett, former senior director for Middle East affairs on Bush's National Security Council, State Department counterterrorism policy planner, and CIA senior analyst.
Quote:
The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, upended a long-running rhetorical campaign by the president and vice president. Just six weeks prior, in a signature tag-team offensive in late October, Bush had worried out loud about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions" to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East. But the president knew the thrust of the NIE's conclusions about a nuke-less Iran at least as early as last August, according to Flynt Leverett, a top Middle East expert and former senior director on Bush's National Security Council...He spoke by phone from Washington.
.................................................................................
Why do you think the NIE report was made public now?

Because the intelligence leadership made a judgment that basically for their own protection they needed to make it public. The letter put out by the deputy director of national intelligence with the report said that because the 2005 NIE had been cited on the record by so many people as a benchmark for U.S. understanding of Iran's progress with its nuclear program, intelligence community leaders wanted to make sure there was a very clear presentation of current views. I suspect they were the ones who really insisted on this. They were deciding to do it for their own sake and credibility...National Intelligence Estimates take a long, long time to put out, and this one took longer than it was originally projected to take, by a considerable margin. I think part of that was that it was difficult to reach a consensus. I think part of it was a certain amount of political pressure to come to a certain conclusion--

You mean political pressure to make the case for going after Iran?

Yeah, exactly. And in 2005, the intelligence community succumbed to that pressure--hook, line and sinker. This time, you had some different people in charge of the process, and some of the pressures from 2005--you had Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon then--were no longer there, although I think there was still some pressure applied. And after a certain point, they did have this new information turn up, that the Iranian military had suspended parts of its program in 2003. They apparently briefed this to the president in August. And between August and now, they've essentially been going over it and figuring out how to take account of it in the NIE. It doesn't surprise me that it took them from August till now to go through that--it's a glacially slow process.

But the president has suggested this week that he only learned of the NIE's conclusions very recently. If in August they had the essential conclusion and were briefing the White House, what does that say about some of the rhetoric we heard after that, in the fall?

Oh, I think the president knew this was coming, and I think he was deliberately shifting his rhetoric on the issue to redefine the problem. Up until the fall, Bush's rhetoric literally for years had been that it's unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. All of a sudden, that shifts to it being unacceptable for Iran to have the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon. I think they were trying to redefine the problem with the idea that they could kind of blunt the impact of the NIE by doing this. I think they miscalculated. The NIE has had an enormous impact on the public debate--particularly the decision to release the multipage document publicly, as opposed to just leaking [some details of] it. The White House miscalculated its ability to manage this. It has definitely made it more difficult for hard-liners like Cheney to make the case now for going down the military road.

Right, a number of people have said that this takes the military option off the table. Do you think that's the case?

I'm not so sure it takes the military option off the table. What were going to see over the next weeks if not months is a kind of battle of intelligence estimates. The hard-liners in the administration are going to keep leaking all kinds of things that were "wrong" with this NIE--why the source wasn't good, why the intelligence wasn't good, why there is still a serious threat. The Israelis have already come out publicly, at the level of the defense minister, Ehud Barak, and said they flat-out disagree with the estimate. I think you're going to have Israel, and friends of Israel here, including the Cheney camp inside the administration, pushing to discredit the NIE in various ways. In other words, we'll see a battle going on over who really gets to define the intelligence assessment on which the president will make his decisions. Is it going to be the U.S. intelligence community? Or will it be some other set of actors who define it?

Iran has been notoriously opaque to U.S. intelligence over the years, and I think these developments raise some familiar questions. How good is our intel on Iran? And aren't we dealing with another pretty powerful contradiction here in terms of the latest assessment?

The contradiction is very powerful! You know, I have to say that I continue to believe that attacking Iran would be a disaster for the U.S. position in the region, and so far as this NIE makes it harder to justify doing so, I think that's a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that over the last two years, the U.S. intelligence community has been all over the map on this issue. And they've been colossally wrong on WMD issues in the past. So why should we put a high degree of confidence in any judgment they come to? Who knows if this reporting is really any good? Not only will the hawkish elements use that to try to discredit it and knock it down, they'll also say that even if the estimate is right, it doesn't matter. They'll say--as Patrick Clawson already has written for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [where Cheney gave his speech in October]--this estimate doesn't change by one day our understanding of when Iran will actually get a nuclear weapon. The argument will be, "Even if everything in that estimate is correct, Iran is still a big problem."

What impact will all this have on the politics of the 2008 presidential race?

On the Republican side, I don't see it having that much of an impact. The Republicans have all staked out pretty extreme positions on Iran and I don't really see them backpedaling. But on the Democratic side it potentially gets very interesting. Barack Obama could really make an argument that Hillary Clinton's vote for the resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was basically a vote for Bush's policy--and was based on an assessment that we now know was wrong about the nature of the threat. And just like it was wrong for her to vote for the Iraq resolution and that showed bad judgment on her part, this showed the same kind of bad judgment--and gee, wouldn't you like to have a president who got these things right the first time around? Obama is going to have to make the case for what this demonstrates about her, and I don't know if in the end he really has the guts to do that, but this could potentially affect the race.

What about national security more broadly in the campaign? It certainly seemed Iran was going to be a key issue going into next year.

Yeah, and I definitely think that for someone like Rudy Giuliani, if he were to become the nominee for his party he would want to make this a campaign about national security and about who's going to be more effective dealing with Iran. Depending on how the debate plays out during the next few months over what's really going on with Iran, he may still be able to do that. But it could also become harder for him to run that kind of campaign.

Could the NIE findings cause a significant change in the Bush administration's approach to Iran?

I don't think so--they're saying Iran is still a danger and they're going to stick to that. They're not going to say, "Oh, well we better get serious about diplomacy now."

But at least in terms of what the world now knows, doesn't this create more of an imperative for diplomatic engagement?

The issue in the end is: If the United States wanted to get serious about diplomacy and put a real offer on the table for Iran with security guarantees and all those things, the Europeans would be right there with us, and China and Russia would be right there with us. The problem standing in the way at this point is U.S. policy. This estimate is not going to change that.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 08:45 PM   #96
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
As much as Bush might be an idiot, and as sad as it is that he will get off of what he has done that easily, no, he didn't slaughter millions of people brutally, installed "killing fields", or did anything nearly that awful.
Guantanamo, the torture employed or the wars waged are far from making him the "worst dictator ever", and I'm sure you don't want him to go that far only to appoint him that title.

Worst American President might fit, but dictator really is far off.


You really think Al Quaeda started this whole crap because the guy in power was Bush?
They would have attacked on 9/11 even if it was Gore. Bush is doing a good job recruiting new terrorists for Al Quaeda, but it's not Bush why they have attacked, or might attack again. It's the Western way of living and their insane vision of having the world under their powers that's giving them wet dreams.
You can do what you want, Al Quaeda will always justify their massacres.

But you need an administration that is really trying to do something about it, not driving more people into joining that organisation.
You're right, I don't want him to go that far just to appoint him that title. My point was that I hope that in the future he will have a very bad name. And that he will stand out in history as horrible horrible leader and person.

I didn't say we were attacked because the guy in power is Bush. I say that we got attacked because of our policies of policing the world and Bush is only making it much worse during his term and i'm sure that many more people are willing to attack us now then before Bush came into the White House. If we didn't put our nose into everyone else's business, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 11:18 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
If we want to talk about who has no place in the 21st century then clearly we have to start with the Saudis and that is precisely where our hypocrisy and self-interests become most apparent. In light of how that country is treated by the west, and particularly how it is hailed by the US government, any other stand we take is maybe not entirely empty, but pretty damn close.
Saudi Arabia, in particular, is a difficult country to address. For one, they have the "oil card"; they are the only member of OPEC that has the capacity to raise oil production substantially beyond what they already generate. And, like it or not, our entire global economy depends on that spigot running reliably right now.

Secondly, even with the "oil card," Saudi Arabia is so filthy rich that they have trillions in investments, particularly in relation to the United States. The largest individual shareholder in Citigroup, for instance, is Prince Al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud--that is, part of the Saudi royal family.

In short, taking a sudden turn against Saudi Arabia is economically and politically impossible. Even then, though, targeting Saudi Arabia directly does not address the fact that the entirety of the Muslim world does not especially have a tradition of secular democracy, so if you're dealing with a nation that literally says that its constitution is "the Koran," you're probably not going to have too much luck changing Saudi Arabia before changing other nations in the region.

A reasonable step, one that was undertaken in Europe in the 18th century, was the idea of "Enlightened absolutism," which is summed up perfectly by Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II as "everything for the people, nothing by the people." Certainly, it might be more of a method to consolidate one's power, rather than a furtherance of democracy, but a lot of these nations are in little shape to suddenly start having truly free and fair elections; and, in the end, if a true Enlightened monarch instituted nationwide education, individual freedoms, and minority tolerance, then there's a good chance that the now-educated populace will chuck their monarchy in the end anyway.

That is, essentially, what happened to Iran, but, as you can see, since the Muslim world is not accustomed to Western democracy, they chucked their despot for another form of theocratic despotism that's probably more difficult to overthrow. And I imagine that that's what would happen in Saudi Arabia if the Saudi royal family was destroyed tomorrow. There's no point in democracy if the populace elects a dictator. So what we need to be doing is probably trying to influence our Middle Eastern totalitarian governments to something more towards "Enlightened absolutism" in the interim. We have to build the foundation before we can erect the house.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 11:49 PM   #98
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Well, that's the opinion of a Washington Post article. The way I understand it, Bush was told several months ago that new information might lead to a reassessment of some type, but that the final report was only just approved and received by the White House last week.
My hope would be that when a president hears that there is new information that might lead to a reassessment, he puts a hold on his current rhetoric until that information is presented, so that (in the event that he isn't knowingly lying to the American public) he doesn't look like a fool by shooting his mouth off while contradictory intelligence is being sorted out.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 12:19 AM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


My hope would be that when a president hears that there is new information that might lead to a reassessment, he puts a hold on his current rhetoric until that information is presented, so that (in the event that he isn't knowingly lying to the American public) he doesn't look like a fool by shooting his mouth off while contradictory intelligence is being sorted out.
As you state it, I agree.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 12:25 AM   #100
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


A reasonable step, one that was undertaken in Europe in the 18th century, was the idea of "Enlightened absolutism," which is summed up perfectly by Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II as "everything for the people, nothing by the people." Certainly, it might be more of a method to consolidate one's power, rather than a furtherance of democracy, but a lot of these nations are in little shape to suddenly start having truly free and fair elections; and, in the end, if a true Enlightened monarch instituted nationwide education, individual freedoms, and minority tolerance, then there's a good chance that the now-educated populace will chuck their monarchy in the end anyway.
Except that even in the 18th century in Europe, there was not a virulent anti-secular education feeling that existed. This is the crux of the problem - even if you had such a person in each of the little nations you speak of, it is highly unlikely that they could promote institutionalized secularism and that is ultimately the primary problem across the Middle East. There are enough factions who don't want this, and the population at large is adequately suspicious because they equate secularism with Western thought (and by proxy, the exercise of Western hegemony).

While it sounds like a nice plan in theory, I really don't see that it could succeed longterm.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 12-06-2007, 06:30 AM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


You're right, I don't want him to go that far just to appoint him that title. My point was that I hope that in the future he will have a very bad name. And that he will stand out in history as horrible horrible leader and person.

I didn't say we were attacked because the guy in power is Bush. I say that we got attacked because of our policies of policing the world and Bush is only making it much worse during his term and i'm sure that many more people are willing to attack us now then before Bush came into the White House. If we didn't put our nose into everyone else's business, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Yes, and chances are good that he will be remembered as a poor President who didn't do much besides going to war in two countries, and that he might be ranked as the worse President in American history.

I agreed in my last post, he probably did a "good" job in recruiting more opponents for Al Quaeda, and certainly helped them gain power instead of weakening them.
Of course American, and to a smaller extent European, policies are part of why Bin Laden and his ilk are fighting the West, though he seriously wouldn't care that the American public doesn't stand behind Bush's policies anymore. He added fuel to the fire, but this fire is burning nevertheless who is running the country.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 07:57 AM   #102
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 10:24 PM
The most important part of this story, is that the US intelligence community has declared it's independence again! As it was before, and should have been all along.

And in a weird way, we have to credit Bush, for getting rid of all of political appointees running the agencies, and replacing with established, career intelligence and military officers.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 08:19 AM   #103
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:24 PM
No, I think we have to credit the intelligence agencies for not sucking up to him again. I don't see how Bush deserves any credit for this.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 08:25 AM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Except that even in the 18th century in Europe, there was not a virulent anti-secular education feeling that existed. This is the crux of the problem - even if you had such a person in each of the little nations you speak of, it is highly unlikely that they could promote institutionalized secularism and that is ultimately the primary problem across the Middle East. There are enough factions who don't want this, and the population at large is adequately suspicious because they equate secularism with Western thought (and by proxy, the exercise of Western hegemony).

While it sounds like a nice plan in theory, I really don't see that it could succeed longterm.
I don't necessarily think that this has to be the case. After all, Europe imported "Western Civilization" through Islam via Al-Andalus, the Mu'tazilah, and Averroës. Additionally, since the Muslim world tends to be prone to romanticism about their status in the Middle Ages, an appeal to this sense of reason might work.

It should also be noted that "Enlightened absolutism" has already found appeal in the Middle East in the past. In fact, it is believed that Iran's "Islamic Republic" was based on the concept through Ayatollah Khomeini's beliefs. That's why he instituted the position of the "Supreme Leader." It's also been stated that the Sultan of Oman today generally fits this classical definition without actually using the term. So I do think that the appeal is there. We would just have to use diplomacy to make sure that it is done properly.

But I do agree that it will be a major challenge in any way you look at it.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 10:53 AM   #105
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris

And in a weird way, we have to credit Bush, for getting rid of all of political appointees running the agencies, and replacing with established, career intelligence and military officers.


credit Bush, or credit the sea change of the 2006 election?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 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