Why Iran? - Page 9 - 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 12-08-2007, 08:40 PM   #121
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Bottom line is that intelligence is usually not fact, but an estimate based on incomplete information.
And yet the Administration is willing to stake the lives on thousands of young men and women on an "estimate based on incomplete information" in order to throw the United States into war.

This happened in Iraq, and the "estimate" was wildly wrong. Why should anybody trust that this time they're right?
__________________

__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 12-08-2007, 08:54 PM   #122
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


And yet the Administration is willing to stake the lives on thousands of young men and women on an "estimate based on incomplete information" in order to throw the United States into war.

This happened in Iraq, and the "estimate" was wildly wrong. Why should anybody trust that this time they're right?
Bingo.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:58 PM   #123
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC

This happened in Iraq, and the "estimate" was wildly wrong. Why should anybody trust that this time they're right?
This is the real scary part. The whole "Boy who cried wolf" thingy.

What happens when they're right?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 12-08-2007, 11:10 PM   #124
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


And yet the Administration is willing to stake the lives on thousands of young men and women on an "estimate based on incomplete information" in order to throw the United States into war.

This happened in Iraq, and the "estimate" was wildly wrong. Why should anybody trust that this time they're right?

Perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that in both 1991 and 2003, no one really knew what the situation was on the ground with respect to WMD until the United States invaded. What would be the consequences of not insuring that Saddam was disarmed? What are the consequences of not insuring that Iran is disarmed or some other country? In each case, the consequences are probably different to a degree and in some cases, the unknown may be to risky. But you have to weigh the consequences of action or no action in each situation. The cost of not taking certain action could concievably outweigh the cost of taking that action. The administration obviously came down on the side that even if the answer to the question of Iraqi WMD was "unknown", the risk and consequences were to great to let it go.

I don't see any evidence that the Bush administration has ever seriously contemplated striking Iran. That seems to come more from his political opponents. Airstrikes are a very temporary solution to a long term problem, and the only real lasting effect some sort of military action could have would be through a full scale invasion of Iran, and the Bush administration has certainly not at any point deployed or prepared the US military to do that.

I think the administration views Iran differently than Iraq, and may in fact be unwilling to actually use military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon because they view the consequences of such a development differently than with Iraq in addition to considering the cost. But, they certainly do not want the Iranians to know precisely what they would do at this time, because the not knowing whether the United States would invade or attack could impact Iran's decision to develop nuclear weapons. Both sides of the isle discuss the importance of keeping the military option on the table.

In fact, if the latest NIE is 100% accurate, that Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003, it appears Iran's decision to stop may have been influenced by the US invasion of Iraq. Many have discussed whether this may have influenced Libya to give up its stocks of WMD in 2003 as well.

In any event, just as the Clinton administration kicked the disarmament issue of Iraq down the road to the Bush administration, it seems that the Bush administration will be kicking the issue of Iranian Nuclear development down the road to the next administration, which may be Clintons wife.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-08-2007, 11:49 PM   #125
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: 19,272
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
I don't see any evidence that the Bush administration has ever seriously contemplated striking Iran.
...seriously?

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:09 AM   #126
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


...seriously?

Angela
Well, besides words used in speeches and press conferences, can you name any concrete actions the President has taken to invade or strike Iran? Obviously, he wants the military option to remain on the table. None of the major democratic candidates for President are ruling out the military option either.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:23 AM   #127
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: 19,272
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Well, besides words used in speeches and press conferences, can you name any concrete actions the President has taken to invade or strike Iran?
Those constant speeches about wanting to invade Iran were what I was thinking of (World War III? Seriously, Bush?). The administration as a whole has been gung-ho about wanting to go. Oddly enough, though, they can't really take any other concrete actions, because they can't afford to do that. And yet they were clearly planning to try anyway.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Obviously, he wants the military option to remain on the table. None of the major democratic candidates for President are ruling out the military option either.
I thought Edwards and Obama were opposed to the idea of war with Iran? And the fact that Bush wants the option on the table at all is troubling.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:34 AM   #128
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
What would be the consequences of not insuring that Saddam was disarmed?
That was what Hans Blix was trying to figure out before the President decided to kick him out and just invade instead.

The Iraq War never was about "disarming Saddam". You're not looking at the big picture if you think that's what it was all about.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:32 AM   #129
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


That was what Hans Blix was trying to figure out before the President decided to kick him out and just invade instead.

The Iraq War never was about "disarming Saddam". You're not looking at the big picture if you think that's what it was all about.


Well, its not really Hans Blix job to determine what the Geopolitical consequences of not disarming Saddam would be. His job was far more specific and technical about Iraq's WMD capacity and whether they had complied or not, it was never his job to decide what policy should be, only to verify whether the Iraqi's were doing what was required of them. The inspections after the 2003 invasion revealed numourous violations by the Iraqi's, related to WMD development that they concealed from the inspectors and could have revealed to them if they were serious about disarmament. It was not the "smoking gun" but the concealment of such activities proves intention which is really what this is all about.



The disarmament of Iraq was a key issue in determining what should be done. The only way you could think otherwise is if your ignorant of what happened in Iraq during the previous administration. This whole issue started long before W even knew he was running for President.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:46 AM   #130
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Those constant speeches about wanting to invade Iran were what I was thinking of (World War III? Seriously, Bush?). The administration as a whole has been gung-ho about wanting to go. Oddly enough, though, they can't really take any other concrete actions, because they can't afford to do that. And yet they were clearly planning to try anyway.



I thought Edwards and Obama were opposed to the idea of war with Iran? And the fact that Bush wants the option on the table at all is troubling.

Angela
What speech did Bush actually state that he wanted to invade Iran? As to Bush's comments about "World War III", it only seems extreme if you have never heard the President of Iran discuss what he would like to do to Israel. I think that everyone can agree that the chances of any hypothetical World War III senerio are far less if Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. That is the point Bush was making. The only ones that are really gung ho about Bush going to war with Iran are the democrats who use at talking points to drum up support for their campaigns.

I've never heard that Obama and Edwards had 100% ever ruled out the use of any type of military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I'd be interested to see a speech or comment where they stated that. On a different issue, it may come as a shock to some, but Obama and Edwards would not rule out still having US troops in Iraq in 2013.

Back to Iran, again what evidence do you have that the administration was clearly trying to attack Iran? When did they make the effort? Such a major operation would require a noticable build of military force beyond what is already in the region. It certainly would involve consultations with all of the United States regional allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia, since a major response from Iran, possibly against other countries in the region, would be expected.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 01:30 PM   #131
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

Well, its not really Hans Blix job to determine what the Geopolitical consequences of not disarming Saddam would be. His job was far more specific and technical about Iraq's WMD capacity and whether they had complied or not, it was never his job to decide what policy should be, only to verify whether the Iraqi's were doing what was required of them. The inspections after the 2003 invasion revealed numourous violations by the Iraqi's, related to WMD development that they concealed from the inspectors and could have revealed to them if they were serious about disarmament. It was not the "smoking gun" but the concealment of such activities proves intention which is really what this is all about.

The disarmament of Iraq was a key issue in determining what should be done. The only way you could think otherwise is if your ignorant of what happened in Iraq during the previous administration. This whole issue started long before W even knew he was running for President.


all of this is moot because it is up to the UN Security Council to decide how to enforce it's resolutions, and not the US.

the WMD intelligence was widely viewed as sketchy, and while there was international consensus that Saddam was indeed a bad person doing bad things, there was only one country with one president who believed that the black box of intelligence gathering presented a strong enough case to justify a full scale invasion of a soverign nation. and you are truly ignorant of the causes of the Iraq war if you ignore how the "threat" of WMDs was presented to the American people. while it would have been illegal for SH to have had these weapons, the issue became not the existence of these weapons but the possibility that these weapons would be given to Al Qaeda and then used against the United States and it's allies. this is why they talked of mushroom clouds, and this was why 9-11 was mentioned in every single speach involving the invasion of Iraq. and this was where the rest of the world diverged with the US. there was no "imminent" threat posed by these now phantasmogorical WMDs. and it turns out there was no threat at all. and certainly there was nothing to justify an invasion of Iraq, especially now that we will be living with the fall out not just of a technicall illegal invasion, but a horribly botched occupation that has done more damage to the US than any other event since the Vietnam war.

and what's sad is that the actual, real, global threats that face the world right now -- Israel/Palestine, Pakistan, global AIDS, global warming -- need more US participation, and our credibility as a honest broker of sorts has been destroyed by the fabrication of the "threat" that WMDs presented to us and the world, as well as our competence in doing anything other than invading.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 01:34 PM   #132
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

Back to Iran, again what evidence do you have that the administration was clearly trying to attack Iran? When did they make the effort? Such a major operation would require a noticable build of military force beyond what is already in the region. It certainly would involve consultations with all of the United States regional allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia, since a major response from Iran, possibly against other countries in the region, would be expected.


the mentioning of WW3, the characterizations of the Iranian president, and the administrations track record of standing at a podium and naming certain things and people "evil" and then invading their countries all seems to add up to a quite credible assessment that, at the very least, "regime change" in Tehran is a foreign policy goal of the present US administration.

thankfully, the 2006 elections were a sea change in US popular opinion, and saw the departure of Rumsfeld and the marginalization of Cheney withing the administartion, who's been clearly the biggest hawk in the administraiton. thankfully, it has been Rice who's been advocating diplomacy with Tehran from the start, and now that the Dems are in control, the WH has had to shift it's tactics and outlook in order to get anything done now that they are facing far stronger political opposition both in Congress itself and across the country (being a wildly unpopular president doesn't help either).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 07:30 PM   #133
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




all of this is moot because it is up to the UN Security Council to decide how to enforce it's resolutions, and not the US.

the WMD intelligence was widely viewed as sketchy, and while there was international consensus that Saddam was indeed a bad person doing bad things, there was only one country with one president who believed that the black box of intelligence gathering presented a strong enough case to justify a full scale invasion of a soverign nation. and you are truly ignorant of the causes of the Iraq war if you ignore how the "threat" of WMDs was presented to the American people. while it would have been illegal for SH to have had these weapons, the issue became not the existence of these weapons but the possibility that these weapons would be given to Al Qaeda and then used against the United States and it's allies. this is why they talked of mushroom clouds, and this was why 9-11 was mentioned in every single speach involving the invasion of Iraq. and this was where the rest of the world diverged with the US. there was no "imminent" threat posed by these now phantasmogorical WMDs. and it turns out there was no threat at all. and certainly there was nothing to justify an invasion of Iraq, especially now that we will be living with the fall out not just of a technicall illegal invasion, but a horribly botched occupation that has done more damage to the US than any other event since the Vietnam war.

and what's sad is that the actual, real, global threats that face the world right now -- Israel/Palestine, Pakistan, global AIDS, global warming -- need more US participation, and our credibility as a honest broker of sorts has been destroyed by the fabrication of the "threat" that WMDs presented to us and the world, as well as our competence in doing anything other than invading.
In terms of US Security, what the UN thinks or feels is really moot. The United States is not going to compromise its security or the security of its allies for the sake of an international organization. If you really want a clear cut example of that, just look at US foreign Policy in the Balkans during the 1990s under Bill Clinton. US military action in both Bosnia and Kosovo was clearly illegal from the standpoint of the United Nations. Those are clear examples where a soverign nation was attacked without any sort of authorization in any way shape or form from the United Nations. The legitamacy for US military action for purely security reasons was sketchy in those cases, not so with Iraq.

Iraq by contrast had presented the United States and its allies in the region with serious security problems for years following the events of 1990-1991. The invasion and annexation of Kuwait, the launch of Ballistic Missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia, the risk to the global oil market, the issue of Iraq's WMD's which led to repeated US military action against Iraq after 1991. In fact, the United States has been engaged in some form of military action inside the borders of Iraq every year since 1991. As bad and problematic as Radovan Karadzic and Slobodon Milsovic were, they were not even in the ball park compared to Saddam's Iraq in terms of threatening US interest. Even in terms of the domestic humanitarian tragedy in Bosnia and Kosovo, Saddam was worse.

It would have been one thing if Saddam had become a virtual pacifist after his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War or been removed with 5 years of that war, but those things never happened and the threat remained. Efforts to contain Saddam started to crumble as countries in the region grew tired of enforcing sanctions and other members of the international community openly tried to bring them to an end. Most foreign Policy analyst as early as the mid-1990s sited Iraq as the country the United States was most likely to go to war with. The risk of simply leaving Saddam in power began to outweigh the cost of removing him.

While the general population in the United States has turned against the war in the past couple of years, the majority of the US military establishment still supports it and recognizes why removing Saddam was the right thing to do for US security. Few people dream or wish for the return of the Saddam regime in Iraq and those that do are either uninformed or have forgotten the major conflicts and wars the United States had already engaged him in prior to 2003.

It is highly unlikely that the United States population would continue to support the mission in Bosnia or Kosovo if the Serbs had decided to resist in any way they could for as long as they could, as the Sunni's and other groups in Iraq have. Would the United States still support the missions in Bosnia and Kosovo if both were still ongoing with 10,000 US troops killed and a long difficult road ahead involving a 10 or 20 year commitment under such hostile conditions? That is precisely what Bill Clinton potentially risked in both Bosnia and Kosovo when he chose to intervene with the US military in those conflicts. Conflicts in countries that did not nearly pose the security threat that Iraq once did. But, a Serb insurgency never developed in either case and because of that, those conflicts and the potential risk they involved have largely been forgotten.

The same, although to a lesser degree could be said about Afghanistan. Would the US population still support the mission in Afghanistan if the fighting and insurgency was as intense as Iraq has been? If the US had taken 13,000 Killed in action as the Soviets did in the 1980s, would the support still be there? Because Al Quada were based out of Afghanistan at the time of 9/11, there would probably always be strong residual support, but its unlikely that it would be as strong as it is today if the casualty situation was similar to that of Iraq. In fact, Canada has suffered almost 100 killed in Afghanistan and is already facing strong domestic pressure to pull their troops out of Afghanistan.

Despite the anti-war sentiment in the United States today, there is the potential that this will wane and fade over time, provided there is a steady improvement inside Iraq and especially once a new administration is in office and takes ownership of the conflict. That next administration will probably be Hillary Clinton's, and despite her current pandering to the anti-war left of her party, she has much more in common with Bush and his camp, than much of the base of the Democratic party.

As to this silly idea that Saddam posed no threat to the United States or the region, here is what Bill Clinton had to say about the issue in 1998:

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 07:49 PM   #134
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: 19,272
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
What speech did Bush actually state that he wanted to invade Iran?
No one speech, just many references in various ones over the months. And while he never came straight out and said, "I want us to invade Iran", his language sure let us know that was what the administration wanted to do.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
As to Bush's comments about "World War III", it only seems extreme if you have never heard the President of Iran discuss what he would like to do to Israel. I think that everyone can agree that the chances of any hypothetical World War III senerio are far less if Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. That is the point Bush was making.
Yeah, Iran and Israel aren't buddy-buddy-name me one area in that part of the world that is. But that doesn't make our reference to WW3 any better, especially since I believe Bush was using that phrase mainly as a means to try and frighten us into supporting the idea. Which is something this administration's been very good at doing during its entire time in office.

Besides that, we have nuclear weapons, too. Many, many countries have them. So why we're targeting Iran specifically for this, I'm not sure. If we want Iran to refrain from having nuclear weapons, we need to disarm ourselves, too, as does everyone else.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
The only ones that are really gung ho about Bush going to war with Iran are the democrats who use at talking points to drum up support for their campaigns.
It may be talking points with some, but with others, I think their response to Bush's plans are valid and worth stating.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
I've never heard that Obama and Edwards had 100% ever ruled out the use of any type of military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I'd be interested to see a speech or comment where they stated that.
I don't know exact specific lines from speeches, I don't have time to read up on every one. I just know that Obama, at least, has been pushing more for diplomatic means to dealing with Iran-I've seen him talk about such things in the stuff I've watched with him, I've yet to hear him state any mention of using military force to deal with Iran. And I hear on the news about how Hilary's critique of Iran, calling one aspect of it a terrorist organization, makes her a target of criticism for Edwards and Obama, which tells me that they disagree with her on that issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
On a different issue, it may come as a shock to some, but Obama and Edwards would not rule out still having US troops in Iraq in 2013.
Now that I have heard, and that disappoints me, as I think we need to be gone from there way, WAY sooner than that.

(I would think that'd be an argument for their being opposed to military action in Iran, too, by the way-if they find it likely troops will still be in Iraq that many years down the line, then that means we won't have enough troops to send into Iran, so I highly doubt they're looking at joining Bush on the push for an Iran conflict anytime soon)

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Back to Iran, again what evidence do you have that the administration was clearly trying to attack Iran? When did they make the effort? Such a major operation would require a noticable build of military force beyond what is already in the region. It certainly would involve consultations with all of the United States regional allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia, since a major response from Iran, possibly against other countries in the region, would be expected.
I will refer you to Irvine's answer here, as he explained it much better than I would've been able to .

And I guess that's another thing, too-if we know Iran would respond to an attack, why bother starting one in the first place? I don't want them to respond, just as I don't want them to start anything, either.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 08:09 PM   #135
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the mentioning of WW3, the characterizations of the Iranian president, and the administrations track record of standing at a podium and naming certain things and people "evil" and then invading their countries all seems to add up to a quite credible assessment that, at the very least, "regime change" in Tehran is a foreign policy goal of the present US administration.

thankfully, the 2006 elections were a sea change in US popular opinion, and saw the departure of Rumsfeld and the marginalization of Cheney withing the administartion, who's been clearly the biggest hawk in the administraiton. thankfully, it has been Rice who's been advocating diplomacy with Tehran from the start, and now that the Dems are in control, the WH has had to shift it's tactics and outlook in order to get anything done now that they are facing far stronger political opposition both in Congress itself and across the country (being a wildly unpopular president doesn't help either).
Well, Ronald Reagan said much the same thing about the Soviet Union, but no one ever seriously believed that Reagan was planning to invade the Soviet Union. Are the chances of some hypothetical World War III senerio happening less, if a regime that advocates for the destruction of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons? I think so, and most democrats probably do as well, except they can't resist the opportunity to grossly twist language to their political benefit. Yes, Bush said things about the Taliban regime and Afghanistan and invaded Afghanistan. But everyone supported and still supports those actions. Bush made the case against Saddam, just as Bill Clinton had before him, and the majority of people, especially congress who had access to much of the same intelligence that the adminstration did, supported the action.

Regime change in Iraq was US policy well before Bush was even running for President. The United States may like to see a different regime in Iran, but there has never been the same level of scrutiny or concern by the US government in either Bill Clintons or George Bush's administration over Iran.

The 2006 elections have proven to be largely irrelevant, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Bush had already decided to part ways with Rumsfeld before the election, and his replacement has helped to enact policies that are even more unpopular with the new Democratic majority in congress than Rumsfelds were, with the Surge of US troops in Iraq involving 15 month tours of duty in Iraq instead of 12. The new Democratic majority were going to withdraw ALL US combat troops from Iraq by the start of March 2008. Instead with 75 days to go before that date, not only are most US combat troops not out of Iraq, but their numbers are in fact 30% to 40% higher than they were when the new Democratic majority took office. Every single Democratic effort to change US policy in Iraq has failed. If the Bush administration thought it was necessary to strike Iran, they could, and there is nothing the Democrats could do about it as proven by Iraq policy.

Its not as though Colin Powell, the Secretary of State prior to Rice, was against diplomacy and sanctions when dealing with Iran. There has been perfect continuity between their time at that particular post.

Its actually been reported that Rumsfeld was never even asked about his opinion in regards to military action in Iraq, so his influence on overall Bush administration policy seems to be a bit overblown. Colin Powell was probably the most influential member in the administration early on and was actually more influential than Cheney in regards to Iraq policy, getting the Bush administration to go back through the United Nations before going to war, while Cheney had felt that was totally unnecessary. Rice as Bush's National Security Advisor was obviously very influential back then as well. The fact is, there is debate but little serious conflict among the members of Bush's cabinet.

In addition, lets not forget that voter turnout in the 2006 election was 40% less than it was for the 2004 election, so the Democrats retaking congress may be more the result of an active, angry and energized minority base, rather than resulting from true increase in broad based support among the general public.
__________________

__________________
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 08:22 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