War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking? - Page 3 - 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 08-03-2002, 12:46 AM   #41
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram



Is there some sort of rule as to what should and should not trigger old, painful memories? Because God certainly knows millions of people's lives would be a hell of a lot easier if that were the case.

Anyways, I don't care to continue on with this. It's a beautiful day.

Sweetheart I wish you more than the best, you certainly deserve it.

No rules like that either.

My opinion is that with those planes flying around in the ethers and doing their job then the world will be better.

It may take some time to realize this, but we have the future in our hands so why let the evil use that against us?

All of us that is.
__________________

z edge is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 02:46 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:30 PM
I do not agree with everything the Economist says but this is their latest opinion on this subject matter:
The case for war

Aug 1st 2002
From The Economist print edition


If you will the end, it is only honest to will the means

Reuters






ITS founders called on America to show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. And so, by and large, it does. But in the case of the looming American war against Iraq, another wise saw needs to be borne in mind. This one can be found pinned in many a corner shop. It advises customers against asking for credit, because “a refusal often offends”.

In much of the world, and even among some Americans, indignation is growing at George Bush's slow but remorseless preparations to remove Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president, by military force (see article). No step, the complainers say, could be better calculated to offend a billion Muslims and confirm fears that, after September 11th, the over-mighty superpower feels entitled to trample wantonly on any enemy, imagined or real. At the least, it is argued, America should abide by the rules. If Mr Bush is planning military action against Iraq, he should first ask the UN Security Council for permission. At talks in Germany this week, the French president and the German chancellor said once again that there could be no new military action against Iraq without fresh UN approval.

Will Mr Bush seek a new resolution before removing Mr Hussein? It is unlikely. If he asks, he may be refused, and a refusal often offends. Having refused, the other members of the Security Council will be offended in turn if—make that when—America, with Britain probably alongside, strikes Iraq regardless. Lawyers for America and Britain will claim that Mr Hussein's wholesale violation of the UN disarmament agreements he signed after being driven out of Kuwait in 1991 is all the justification they need. But with all due respect to the Security Council, the legal arguments its members deploy to justify their prior political choices are not especially gripping. The issue here is not Jarndyce v Jarndyce, a quarrel about small print. It is the danger Mr Hussein poses to the world, and whether that danger is big enough to justify the risks of a war.



How bad does he have to be?
The danger Mr Hussein poses cannot be overstated. He is no tinpot despot, singled out for arbitrary American punishment. Nor is Iraq a banana republic. With the possible exception of North Korea, but perhaps not even then, Mr Hussein is the world's most monstrous dictator, who by the promiscuous use of violence has seized unfettered control of a technologically advanced country with vast oil reserves. He has murdered all his political opponents, sometimes squeezing the trigger in person. He has subdued his Kurdish minority by razing their villages and spraying them with poison gas. In 1979 he invaded Iran, thus setting off an eight-year war that squandered more than 1m lives. In 1990 he invaded and annexed Kuwait, pronouncing it his “19th province”. When an American-led coalition started to push him out, and though knowing Israel to be a nuclear power, he fired ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv, in the hope of provoking a general Arab-Israeli conflagration. Next time you hear someone ask why, in a world full of bad men, it is Mr Hussein who is being picked on, please bear all of the above in mind. He may very well be the worst.

And yet it is not simply in his record of aggression, cruelty and recklessness that the peril to the wider world resides. If that were all the story, the danger might be easily contained. The unique danger in Iraq is that this country's advanced technology and potential oil wealth could very soon give this aggressive, cruel and reckless man an atomic bomb.






How dangerous would that be? To judge by the reaction of Mr Bush's foreign critics, the magnitude of the threat is in the eye of the beholder. But it is not difficult to see why, after September 11th, Americans in particular find it hard to be sanguine about the prospect of a sworn enemy equipping himself with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In the worst case, these might one day be used against the United States, either directly by Iraq itself or by some non-state group to whom Mr Hussein had transferred his lethal technology. At a minimum, a nuclear-armed Mr Hussein could be counted on to revive his earlier ambitions to intimidate his neighbours and dominate the Gulf. Prophesying is difficult, especially about the past. But if Mr Hussein had already had nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait 11 years ago, he might still be there.



Presidents and precedents
Many people who acknowledge that Mr Hussein is a danger nonetheless oppose Mr Bush's plan to depose him, on the ground that this would in itself set a dangerous precedent. How safe would the world really be if the United States, armed now with Mr Bush's new doctrine of pre-emption, swanned about it shooting up any country that possessed or sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction, deposing any president whose face it did not like? That is a good question. It is not, however, the question that arises in Iraq.





When he invaded Kuwait, Mr Hussein forfeited some of Iraq's normal sovereign rights. After his defeat, it became apparent that Iraq had been secretly developing chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, in contravention of its treaty obligations, such as those under the nuclear non-proliferation pact. Given this, and his recent aggression, the United Nations put Iraq under a uniquely intrusive system of surveillance, designed to ensure that his WMD efforts would come to an end. Crippling economic sanctions were to be lifted only when the UN's arms inspectors could be sure he had complied. Eleven years on, Iraq is still crippled, the inspectors have been forced out, and nobody believes that Mr Hussein has given up seeking a bomb or scrapped all the chemical and biological weapons he already has. He has literally preferred to starve Iraq than to give up his appetite for them.

None of this is to argue that a war to remove Mr Hussein should be undertaken lightly. Though the Iraqi army is even less of a match for America's than it was a decade ago, that was a different sort of war. With his own head and not just his most recent conquest at stake, and especially when he calculates that he has nothing to lose, Mr Hussein might very well use the unconventional weapons he has collected. The casualties this time—especially the civilian casualties—could be much larger than they were before.

It is little wonder, given this, that people of goodwill are groping for a safer alternative. But wishful thinking in the face of mortal danger is bad policy. Perhaps the best hope is that, as the noose tightens, Mr Hussein will save himself by letting the inspectors return. If they did so on a credible go-anywhere, check-anything basis, such an opportunity would be worth grabbing, at least to see if it worked.

Failing this, however, the outlook is grim. Some argue that a better alternative to war is to keep Mr Hussein in his box, persevering with the strategy of containment. But after 11 years, it is time to acknowledge that the box is full of holes and that containment has failed. By keeping Iraq poor, the sanctions have inflicted suffering on Iraq's people and so brought America and its allies into disrepute in much of the Arab world. But the sanctions have not dulled the Iraqi leader's appetite for the most lethal of weapons, and have slowed rather than stopped his ability eventually to procure them. The honest choices now are to give up and give in, or to remove Mr Hussein before he gets his bomb. Painful as it is, our vote is for war.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2002, 05:59 AM   #43
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Saddam Hussein is not a role model for children, but let's take a look at the facts that we've seen posted in this forum, thus far.

We've learned that War should be the last option. We've learned that the Bush Administration wants a war before anything else.

This is wrong and will cause many problems for future generations including my own. I know it sounds trite, but I'm not wanting to live through a massive war that bids the Muslims against the Christians. YOu know what I mean.
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-04-2002, 12:57 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:30 PM
If the Bush Administration had wanted a war before anything else, they would have invaded Iraq over a year ago. The potential for Saddam to do serious damage to other countries grows everyday. Many feel for security and the longterm interest of the region, that the regime there should be changed. Unfortunately nothing can do that except war. Only Bin Laden's and those that follow their sick twisted ideals truely see this is a Muslim vs the west situation. This is about international security, not religion and culture, although Bin Laden wants you to believe otherwise.
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2002, 06:23 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If the Bush Administration had wanted a war before anything else, they would have invaded Iraq over a year ago. The potential for Saddam to do serious damage to other countries grows everyday. Many feel for security and the longterm interest of the region, that the regime there should be changed. Unfortunately nothing can do that except war. Only Bin Laden's and those that follow their sick twisted ideals truely see this is a Muslim vs the west situation. This is about international security, not religion and culture, although Bin Laden wants you to believe otherwise.
I too do not agree with Danospano's assertion that Bush wants a war before anything else.

But his point about provoking a Muslims versus Jews/Christians is very valid, even if he didn't express it completely clearly. The point is not that this war is a Muslims versus the West war (Saddam is, strictly speaking, a secular despot), the point is that it will be perceived that way throughout the Middle East, and that could be disastrous. The US is going to have to get its diplomatic ducks in a row in the Middle East before invading Iraq
speedracer is offline  
Old 08-04-2002, 07:11 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Much was said about the Arab street in 1990/1991 and that the Egyptian government would fall. It did not happen, not even close. The same things were said about are invasion of Afghanistan, again, where was the massive arab outrage that would overthrow governments. I'd say the most will see is people protesting in the streets and burning flags. The governments are staying away from Bush so as to be more in line with the "Arab Street". The only countries needed for this operation are Kuwait and Turkey, those countries are already letting us preposition supplies and equipment.

I doubt there is more that Bush can do to line up Arab friends since this operation will be taking place sometime between January and April 2003.
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 02:16 AM   #47
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Let's not forget that Hussein offers $25,000 to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber. The average income for a Palestinian is $1,575, so this is quite a bit of money. I've seen footage of ceremonies in Palestine where widows are being handed the money in front of a crowd. It's really quite sad.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...0314-4015r.htm
garibaldo is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 03:00 AM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,462
Local Time: 10:30 AM
putrifyingly stupid.

this makes me sick, and quite depressed.

yes saddam is a bad guy, but so are alot of other people.

this is just sickening.

war is never the answer...

except once in the last century and we all know which war that was....

the vietnam war ofcourse!
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 11:01 AM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:30 AM
I do lament the prospect of war, but you cannot poke at the bear for well over a decade and suddenly expect him to be nice to us. It's too late and too many errors have been made over the last 11-12 years to somehow come out of this in a pacifist manner.

I have always valued human rights over politics, and, perhaps, the best way to bring back human rights for the people of Iraq is to eliminate the dictator (yes, I cannot believe some people are supporting a dictator here) that is in the way.

Decisions, decisions. The American military is certainly capable of making this relatively bloodless and quick, so let's hope it happens that way. War with Iraq is an inevitability; beyond all of our controls. It is just a matter of when and for what fabricated immediate reason.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 11:54 AM   #50
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: 20,570
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
Ten years removed from the first Bush administration and once again another Bush administration is gearing up for war against Iraq. The conquer Iraq wing of the Bush administration argues that the military overthrow of Saddam is a vital step in the war on terrorism. The preparations for battle are already under way, as evidenced by satellite images of U.S. Army "tent" cities being constructed in Qatar along with over 1,000 Senior U.S. military planners being moved to the region. In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???

I'm AGAINST a war on Iraq for the following reasons:

1) The U.S. has no justification for war with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the U.S. It's weapons program, while a concern, pose no immediate threat to the U.S. or neighboring countries. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when IT is under attack or about to be under attack. Nothing like that is happening here.

2) Because Iraq is a fellow member of the U.N., the U.N. would need to issue the necessary authority for such an attack on a fellow member. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter clearly states that the U.N. Security Council should determine the existence of any threat towards a member nation as well as decide the action to be taken towards maintaining international peace and security. Tony Blair has been warned by his legal staff that an attack on Iraq without provocation is in direct violation of the U.N. charter.

3).The human cost of war. War is hell. If pushed to the brink in a final showdown with the U.S, Saddam will bring as many Iraqis and Americans down with him. Casualties on both sides could be significant.

4). Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. However, Saddam no doubt retains some of these weapons and has shown a willingness to use them in the past against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops. A war with Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration says it wants to prevent. Facing military defeat, Saddam might resort to launching an attack on the only targets he can hit-Israel or the assemble U.S. forces in the area. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelies, all bets are off in the region. Israel will protect itself and this could lead to a larger war and possibly the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. troops with chemical weapons.

5). Political damage. King Hussein of Jordan has talked about a "Pandora's box" and "political vaccuum" being created by a war on Iraq. The U.S. has NO PLANS for an exit strategy. It is highly possible U.S. forces could find themselves stuck in the middle of a Civil War between the Kurds and Shiites. The U.S. would be acting in Iraq virtually alone and in the face of strong opposition from many nations. The Arab rage in the region could destabilize governments in the region and increase the turmoil in the Middle East. Anti-American hatred would exacerbate itself and undoubtedly produce new recruits for terrorist activity against the U.S.

6). The economic cost. The NY Times reported that the economic cost of a war with Iraq would most likely send the U.S. economy into another prolonged recession like the first encounter with Iraq---only this time much worse as the U.S. would be footing virtually the entire $80 billion + price tag. Deficits would be HUGE, oil and gas prices would skyrocket...and the effects on the global economy would prove to be detrimental as well.

7). No credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape, or form. None.

8). Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare a state of war. It is a blatant abuse of presidential authority to committ the number of resources and human capital in an effort to overthrow a regime that has not attacked us. This is a democracy (republic) of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not Bush's personal dictatorship.

Saddam is certainly an evil man. However, an attack on Iraq by the Bush administration would set a dangerous precedent of preemptive attacks that violates the Charter of the U.N. and undermines the foundation of international law. U.S. and British officials speak openly of preemptive strikes as a necessary response to Saddam's preceived threat and his weapons of mass destruction. The West's attitude is that it can no longer wait to be attacked before responding, but will strike first to eliminate perceived threats before the arise. This is a doctrine of imperial arrogance in my opinion. It is a philosophy not unlike that of aggressors throughout history. It is a formula for endless war and military mobilization. The Pentagon budget under Bush has already spiked $400 billion a year and will rise even further with a cycle of war and vengeance.

The U.S. and the world cannot ignore the weapons threat or dismiss the menace that is Saddam...but I argue that there are always constructive alternatives to war. Has anyone in the Bush camp heard of diplomacy? Iraq has mentioned it would accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors...if the Bush administration requested. Why isn't the Bush admin working with Russia and other nations to enforce an effective weapons embargo on Iraq? These are just a couple of what I believe are viable policy options when addressing the Iraqi threat.

And let's not forget...a regime change in Iraq will do nothing towards making the image of the U.S. any better in the region. And, who's to say the alternative to Saddam would be any better??? It cannot be stated enough the amount of lives the U.S. is responsible for killing with the economic sanctions we have placed on the Iraqi people since the Gulf War. A recent report I saw put that figure somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000 lives lost due to our sanctions. This doesn't exactly endear the Iraqi people towards the West.

Finally, the last reason I'm opposed to a war with Iraq is personal. In fact, it is really my FIRST reason for being opposed to war with them and I admit it is a SELFISH REASON. My beautiful wife is an leiutenant in the U.S. Army, currently with a non-deployable unit. However, she is being transferred to a highly deployable Engineering unit-a unit that has been deployed for both the Gulf War and Bosnia-in October...around about the time many pundits think such an attack is likely. She has been in the Army for 12 years and has never been deployed. She has no fears/qualms about it...she will readily serve her country when/If called. I, however, will be a nutcase and will not only constantly worry for her well being but I will really resent Mr. Bush even more than I do today.

A war with Iraq is not necessary. Public opinion polls already show that most Americans don't support such a war. Now, we need a President to tone down his rhetoric and a Congress to "check" the President on this and provide some leadership. It's time Americans take their country back from the elite politicians who care only about that chip on their shoulder. This could be another Vietnam...only this time we won't be reading about it past tense in the history books...we'll be living the nightmare daily...and one of my loved ones might be a pawn in this entire ordeal. Our leaders need to THINK about this...hard.
I agree with you (and I hope that your wife won't have to get involved, or if she does, I hope she'll be okay).

Angela
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 12:10 PM   #51
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
War with Iraq is an inevitability; beyond all of our controls.
I heard a debate on this issue a few days ago (every person was involved with foreign affairs in one way or another)
not all involved agreed war was inevitable
all did agree that nobody really knows what should happen when Sadam is gone
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 02:37 PM   #52
Registered User
 
chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 126
Local Time: 03:30 PM
President Bush Reveals His 18-Hole Plan to Invade Iraq

(AP) Using a golf ball and a set of Ping clubs, President Bush demonstrated to members of the press his administration's current plans for bringing down Iraqi Saddam Hussein.

"You see," said the President, using a seven-iron to point, "That Osama fellow was hard to hit because he was in the rough. So that whole 'we got to hit Osama to win the game' thing was sort of a mulligan. We just forget about all that. But, you see, that Saddam fellow is out there on the green. It's almost like he has a big sick in his head with a flag flying. Sure, you can miss a few times, but you know where the sonofabitch is. So, eventually, you are going to drop him."

Later, Mr. Bush showed the press specifically what he has in mind for Saddam Hussein when he placed a glistening Titlest pond ball, retrieved that morning by his mother Barbara, on a tee. "You see that there ball?" asked the President. "Well, that is Saddam's head. Only white. Tee-hee. And this here club is me."

The President made sure the press understood his analogy by asking: "You following me here? The ball is Saddam and the club - well, actually, just the heavy metal part at the very end - is me! Hee-hee. Now watch what I plan to do to the bastard."

After several swings, the President made contact with Mr. Hussein, sending a pack of Secret Service agents scurrying into an adjacent parking lot to find him. Afterward, turning to his father in their golf cart, the President was overheard to remark, "I think Saddam knows that I mean business now. And everyone didn't believe me when I said this was going to be a working vacation. Thirteen holes down - only six to go!"
chain is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 03:13 PM   #53
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 10:30 AM
I'm so sick of it !

To attack Iraq is like to attack the whole arab world , it's suicide .
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 04:52 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:30 PM
The arabs outside of Iraq did not consider it that way in 1991! Nor did most of the arab or muslim world consider the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA to be an attack on them.
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 06:21 PM   #55
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Re: I'm so sick of it !

Quote:
Originally posted by pinkfloyd
To attack Iraq is like to attack the whole arab world , it's suicide .
Suicide for them, maybe

z edge is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 06:31 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The arabs outside of Iraq did not consider it that way in 1991! Nor did most of the arab or muslim world consider the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA to be an attack on them.
Are you shure about Afghanistan ? I thought that Pakistan was not happy with it ( And than the dollars came in ).Pakistan have a dictator and was a rough state.
And remember, the slogan of Bush is, if you are not with us, you are against us.
Rono is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 08:43 PM   #57
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 03:30 PM
No, President Musharraf has been trying to crack down on militants. They are not openly opposing us. It's been almost a year since Sept 11th. Have you anti-war people come up with a viable alternative to our current dilemma that doesn't involve killing? How about yogic flying?
garibaldo is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 09:03 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Lemon Meringue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 3,851
Local Time: 09:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano

We've learned that War should be the last option. We've learned that the Bush Administration wants a war before anything else.
Lemon Meringue is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 09:33 PM   #59
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Meringue


Lemon Meringue,

No sense getting all confused over danno's posts. I gave up on that a long time ago.

Garibaldo,
Your question will either go unanswered or you will be flamed and labeled a "warmonger". Should the latter occur, I have a warmonger support group going. Meetings are at 9pm on Sundays, be there!

And to whomever is offended by that, lighten up! I am only kidding
z edge is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 11:07 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chain
President Bush Reveals His 18-Hole Plan to Invade Iraq

(AP)
Chain:

Was that article really from the AP? It seemed a bit satirical, but you posted it and quoted it as being from the Associated Press. Please post a link for us if that is the case; I would like to see related articles if they have any. Thanks!

~U2Alabama
__________________

U2Bama 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 10:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×