| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8141] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 07:49  |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Pretty good source of news.
Also check out http://www.rense.com
If you want to know the bigger picture check them news sites.
their not baised towards anyone.
The real losers of the war will be the civilians and soldiers who will get injured and killed in this war.
The victors will the politicians who are waging this war sitting safely behind their desks while playing with inocent lives.
Sending your family members to fight and kill, while their sons and daughters and friends are safe with jobs which are far away from front lines.
Bush and co, are their sons in the front line or any other politicians sons or daughters facing danger from the war.
The oil corporations will make billions from that iraqi oil.
contracts from oil companies have alrady been signed.
How many oil companys bush and co own.
US has gone to war without UN authority.
which makes it illegal under international law.
Is'nt this what saddam did 12 years ago when he went to war against kuwait without UN authority . Even though he had every right to go to war as kuwait was part of iraq before 1950 the british split the country and named the small part kuwait.
saddem allegedly gassed his own people the same gas US sold him MR Rumsfield and him were chums when US sold him chemicals to harm people. Iraq used gass against enemy soldiers not his own people, it was the iranians who used gas againts the kurds.
What about in WACO when the agents gassed their own people in that compound David koresh and his members were gassed.
is'nt that gassing your own people.
If US Goverment was honest about disarming dictaters then it should start by disarming itself and all the other nations which have them.
They should start by example not just cutting a few hundreds but all of them.
North korea which has said it has nukes and threatened US with nuke attack. why aren't they getting attacted.
maybe they have no oil, or maybe they have the means to defend themselves i.e they have nukes.
If saddem did have any nukes then US when not invade out of fear saddem will use the nukes.
I do not support saddam, I hate that man he is a dictater but then their are dictaters in other countries also.
Saddem was an ally to the US before 1990,
After 1990 he served his purpose and now he will be disposed off.
source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.rense.com
as well as other news sites.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8146] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 08:28  |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Ummmm, that's not biased?
C'mon. One of the articles is "Has Zionism triumphed?"
If that isn't biased, I don't know what is.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8148] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 09:12 |
 |
[sg]the0ne
Messages: 442
Registered: February 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
Thanks for another interesting post. I had no idea the Copy»Paste thing was so 'hot' now a-days...
| havocsnipe |
The victors will the politicians who are waging this war sitting safely behind their desks while playing with inocent lives.
Sending your family members to fight and kill, while their sons and daughters and friends are safe with jobs which are far away from front lines.
Bush and co, are their sons in the front line or any other politicians sons or daughters facing danger from the war.
|
Lets try ... the victors will be the Iraqi people & the rest of the world because it will be a safer place. Thanks for the attempted CLASS DIVISION. The old divide and conquer thing still working for your side ? We normally try for the unite approach but if that doesn't work we will say 'fuck it'. Although politicians do not share the same 'class'/'social status' as the people (common American), this is apart of your delusions in life that we want to throw away Americans like paper dolls. See unlike Saddams theory on 'the general population' we prefer to utilize OURS by letting them prosper in freedom.
| havocsnipe |
The victors will the politicians who are waging this war sitting safely behind their desks while playing with inocent lives.
Sending your family members to fight and kill, while their sons and daughters and friends are safe with jobs which are far away from front lines.
Bush and co, are their sons in the front line or any other politicians sons or daughters facing danger from the war.
The oil corporations will make billions from that iraqi oil.
contracts from oil companies have alrady been signed.
How many oil companys bush and co own.
|
Try pilfering from a site with better gramatical skills. :rolleyes:
Who will come out on top financially ? I'm so pleased to meet someone who knows how much this will cost since we are technically still in DAY ONE. Do you even grasp the kind of things that are going to have to happen for Bush to complete his goals of rebuilding Iraq ? On the note of $MONEY$ though I HOPE your aware the French & Germans have been selling the Iraqi's military supplies. Those anti-war French as RECENT AS JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. I wouldn't want the USA to go in either if the Iraqi's had my new gear laying around.
[/quote]
| havocsnipe |
If US Goverment was honest about disarming dictaters then it should start by disarming itself and all the other nations which have them.
They should start by example not just cutting a few hundreds but all of them.
North korea which has said it has nukes and threatened US with nuke attack. why aren't they getting attacted.
maybe they have no oil, or maybe they have the means to defend themselves i.e they have nukes.
If saddem did have any nukes then US when not invade out of fear saddem will use the nukes.
I do not support saddam, I hate that man he is a dictater but then their are dictaters in other countries also.
Saddem was an ally to the US before 1990,
After 1990 he served his purpose and now he will be disposed off.
|
Saddam was our enemies enemy. Just like the Russia was during WWII, just like 100 other examples of situation like THIS. When the US realized giving this guy military equip[etc] isn't a good idea. He was no longer our 'ally' because of the common enemy bond we had was now gone because of the cost/gain issue. In short we decided not to be pal's with Saddam anymore.
The Korean forces you refer to still have diplomatic options left. This has only recently in the lime light not an on going twelve year Saddan disarmament falacy. Add to that recent global terrorism awareness & the fact that Saddam allows(&supports $ wise) terrorist to seek harbor in his country + train there = Hey he's had 12years of fun-n-the-sun. Lets go get Saddam so he can't shares ANYMORE of his chemical+biological+nuclear capabilities with any FUCKING CRAZY TERRORIST. Poor Saddam..all these big bad capitalist pigs out to get him..Snap out of it ! SADDAM is the CAUSE war is the EFFECT. The UN has chosen to let Iraq disgrace them on the world platform by not enforcing RESOLUTIONS THEY ALL AGREED TO. You see stuff like this in their reports...its laughable :
| The UN Funny Farm |
B. Concealment investigations---(6 October 1997)
126. There is incomprehension of why Iraq is persisting so strongly with both refusing to make the facts known about its biological weapons programme and why it is so insistent on blocking the Commission's own efforts to reach those facts.
|
What would someone want to do with offensive based chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear capabilites, a long range missle program AND a missle guidence system. We'll the UN has their top guys working on this isue and this is what they said : "We should know in a matter of months, give or a take a few decades for a margin of error based on THE CONTINUED PATTERN OF LYING & CONCEALMENT that has taken place from DAY ONE."
The FIST PHASE is identification & then elimination of items in violation. His job was to provide us the evidence or the units to destroy. TWELVE YEARS LATER we STILL have not completed THE FIRST 1/2 OF THE FIRST PHASE IN STEP ONE. Saddams goal is armament.
He will play the "UN Inspections" game as long as you will let him. We have already know he developed NEW WEAPONS that are in violation so please dont say "oh but he doesn't have any and he's certainly not building them". Check out the guys track record before you go running around with his flag in your hand.
Think about that for a little while..
We should all be aware of Saddam's murdering/lying/concealing ways by now.
yahoo : chapstic25
aim : lamant281
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8156] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 09:46 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The accuser US claims Iraq still has weapons of mass destructions.
Iraq claims it has not got any, The UN could not find any weapons like that and still wants to search. How can iraq now prove to the US it has no weapons.
How can anyone provide prove that you have not got what you are looking for.
Why can't the US provide the international community any SOLID
EVIDENCE that iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
If US can have thousands of nukes and has used them.
Is is very hypocritical for them to say other countries can't have them.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8159] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 09:53 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Any biulding of iraq will go towards US corporations and some to UK.
so there is lots of money to be made. cantracts have already been
signed.
The billions on cantract to drill oil and rebuild oil refinarys and search for new oil went to russia and france . but now after this war it will go to US corporations. Some of which are owned by BUSH and CO.
You see there is Billions of $$ to be made. As well as controlling this oil rich region.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8160] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 09:56 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
Why can't the US provide the international community any SOLID EVIDENCE that iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
|
We have been providing evidence. American intelligence reports led weapons inspectors to several prohibited things the Iraq 'forgot' to mention in their 12,000 page report of nothing. Powell went to the UN and presented alot of evidence Iraq is actively trying to hide its weapons.
Oh and by the way. Iraq fired a scud missile at Kuwait a few hours ago. That's one of the prohibited things Saddam said he didn't have any more
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8163] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 10:01 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
Any biulding of iraq will go towards US corporations and some to UK.
so there is lots of money to be made. cantracts have already been
signed.
The billions on cantract to drill oil and rebuild oil refinarys and search for new oil went to russia and france . but now after this war it will go to US corporations. Some of which are owned by BUSH and CO.
You see there is Billions of $$ to be made. As well as controlling this oil rich region.
|
Overthrowing Saddam is going to cost an awful lot. The cost may outweigh any money we make rebuilding Iraq. If this was about oil and money then we would have cut a deal with Saddam (like France did) and forsaken the suffering Iraqi people.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8165] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 10:10 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
so US intelligence reports told the UN inspectors several prohibited things iraq did not mention in that report.
ok so what were them serveral things iraq did not mention?
Did US have any EVIDENCE to show the UN that iraq have has them sevral things and were are they in iraq.
What happened to the offer were the iraqi scientists and their family to be shipped out of iraq so the US can interview them.
the sceintists will not worry about their family as they will be safe out of iraq.
Why did the US turn this down.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8167] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 10:15 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Before the invasion of kuwait were the US told saddemm if he invades kuwait then it's his bussiness, But US attacked Iraq destryoed iraq infrastructure and has been since 12 years bombing iraq on a daily basis.
Iraq has been bomed for 12 years nearly everyday by US war planes.
Do think saddam then will give the cantracts to the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8173] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 10:25 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Those no fly zones are illegal.
No country has a right to tell another country were you can and not fly.
UN has not given any authority to them no fly zones.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8174] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 10:26 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
so US intelligence reports told the UN inspectors several prohibited things iraq did not mention in that report.
ok so what were them serveral things iraq did not mention?
Did US have any EVIDENCE to show the UN that iraq have has them sevral things and were are they in iraq.
What happened to the offer were the iraqi scientists and their family to be shipped out of iraq so the US can interview them.
the sceintists will not worry about their family as they will be safe out of iraq.
Why did the US turn this down.
|
For starters, illegal chemical weapons artillery shells. They were fairly new and had recently had been filled with chemicals.
As far as the scientist thing goes the US was begging the weapons inspectors to get scientists and their families out of Iraq. The weapons inspectors refused at first, and then Iraq refused to let it happen. More Iraqi non-compliance.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8176] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 10:29 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
Those no fly zones are illegal.
No country has a right to tell another country were you can and not fly.
UN has not given any authority to them no fly zones.
|
The no fly zones are perfectly legal. Iraq lost a war, that was one of the consequences.
The UN has no authority. Its a place for countries to try to resolve problems diplomatically. It is not a government.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8196] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 11:22 |
eggmac
Messages: 51
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| NeoSaber |
The UN has no authority. Its a place for countries to try to resolve problems diplomatically. It is not a government.
|
You managed to use exactly the same, 100%ly the same reasoning as Saddam Hussein! Congratulations.
Expect your house to be bombed by the US military in the next 48 hours.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8197] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 11:23 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The artillary shells which the UN found had nothing in them
THEY WERE EMTY.
No chemicals in them at all.
UN did not find any trace of chemicals.
Iraq did offer the scientists.
It was the US which refused. As then the truth about US fallacy will be out to the the world community.
No fly zones were never aceppted by iraq as result of their defeat in kuwaut.
Hence no fly zones are illegal iraq has every right to defend it's air space to which it never accepted. it was imposed on it by US.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8201] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 11:32 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
No fly zones were never aceppted by iraq as result of their defeat in kuwaut.
Hence no fly zones are illegal iraq has every right to defend it's air space to which it never accepted. it was imposed on it by US.
|
When you LOSE THE WAR, that's what happens. TheOne already said this. You aren't given the privilege to 'accept' anything. You pretty much have to take what you're given.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8202] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 11:32 |
|
[sg]the0ne
Messages: 442
Registered: February 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
The artillary shells which the UN found had nothing in them
THEY WERE EMTY.
No chemicals in them at all.
UN did not find any trace of chemicals.
Iraq did offer the scientists.
It was the US which refused. As then the truth about US fallacy will be out to the the world community.
No fly zones were never aceppted by iraq as result of their defeat in kuwaut.
Hence no fly zones are illegal iraq has every right to defend it's air space to which it never accepted. it was imposed on it by US.
|
The warheads were IN MATERIAL BREACH...VIOLATION...COMPRENDE?
The scientist WERE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY. Most were interviewed with Iraqi 'officials' present or tape recorded their conversation so they could prove to Saddam they didn't tell any of his dirty little secrets..unless thay want to join the listed of murdered.
If you only interview scientist in the country and DO NOT allow them & their family leave the country "interview" = bullshit. The USA has chosen NOT to CONTINUE w/Saddams GAMES. Because later that night when you are asleep in your bed in Iraq with your family VERY BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.
I'm pretty sure the UN imposed the no fly zone, we happen to help enforce it.
Let the PROPAGANDA GO. I will NOT tolerate idiot speak here in THIS forum. All lies, attempts at deception & general unfounded un-American rhetoric etc including poor Saddam evil USA will be met with a brutal wave of FACTS.
The followers of *your* movement may have no interest in the back of facts but I find it offers me most comfortable positions in my statements.
The One
yahoo : chapstic25
aim : lamant281
[Updated on: Thu, 20 March 2003 11:35] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8203] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 11:33 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| eggmac |
You managed to use exactly the same, 100%ly the same reasoning as Saddam Hussein! Congratulations.
|
I was just pointing out that things aren't legal because the UN says they are. In the case of Iraq, the US did allow the UN to take the lead in disarming Saddam. Saddam lost a war. His penalty was he had to do what the US told him to. The US said he had to be disarmed and agrred to let the UN do it. The UN has no authority over the US, but by because of Saddam's own actions he is required to listen to the UN.
That's why Saddam is wrong and we are right.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8208] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 12:00 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
those emty warheads , were already on the report years back.
the UN had already had info on them.
That was nothing new.
the sceintists were allowed to go by saddam. but US changed their minds cause the want war.
they wanted war in the begining.
when clinton was in power.
donald rumsfeild approaced clinton and told him to make war on iraq as it's a threat. but clinton said no the UN inspections are working. lets stick to something which works.
There is no justifiable reason for USA to go the war against iraq.
this is outright agression against a an already impovrished nation.
Isreal has been in breach of countless UN resoltuions for the past 50 years The US should bomb them.
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8211] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 12:07 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
those emty warheads , were already on the report years back.
the UN had already had info on them.
That was nothing new.
the sceintists were allowed to go by saddam. but US changed their minds cause the want war.
they wanted war in the begining.
|
The warheads were found to be relatively new, perhaps a year old. They were being hidden from the weapons inspectors. The US said where to find them, and we were right.
I'd really like you to cite a source about those scientists. The US kept asking the weapons inspectors to bring scientists out of the country.
How could the US have even refused. It was supposed to be up to the weapon inspectors. If they wanted to bring out a scientist and Iraq would allow it, it would have happened. Even if the US had opposed it like you say.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8218] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 12:15 |
havocsnipe
Messages: 45
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The emty warheads were not in the breach of UN resolutions if they were then UN would have gone to war.
US would of then used that argument to get UN authority to invade Iraq.
Iraq already had them down on the 12000 page report.
besides the emty warheads are a threat to no one.
Iraqi sceintists what use would they when US would take their word.
so that idea was abandend.
Check this out
The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.
http://www.rense.com/general35/tearr.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
| www.whatreallyhappened.com [message #8220] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 12:20 |
|
[sg]the0ne
Messages: 442
Registered: February 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| havocsnipe |
The emty warheads were not in the breach of UN resolutions if they were then UN would have gone to war.
US would of then used that argument to get UN authority to invade Iraq.
Iraq already had them down on the 12000 page report.
besides the emty warheads are a threat to no one.
Iraqi sceintists what use would they when US would take their word.
so that idea was abandend.
Check this out
The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.
http://www.rense.com/general35/tearr.htm
|
LOL
Iraq has been DEFYING THE UN FROM DAY 1. If UN inspectors found nukes a few days ago France and the like would be yelling LOOK INSPECTIONS ARE WORKING. Your a little late on trying to update me, I read that news hours ago.
You mean the 12000 page report that almost mirrored the first one and STILL LACKS INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR 'SUPOSED' desctruction of WHO KNOWS WHAT when no one was looking ?
"Iraqi sceintists what use would they when US would take their word.
so that idea was abandend. " You may want to stick to the same story when spreading lies.
Try not to make it so easy, I can do this stuff off the top of my head.
Edit : You can OBVIOUSLY see here that the UN resolutions on Iraq aren't UNDERSTANDING when it comes to nuclear/bio/chem capable war heads...
| The UN |
UNSCOM
Reports to the Security Council
25 January 1999
ANNEX D
ACTIONS BY IRAQ TO OBSTRUCT DISARMAMENT
1. The history of the Special Commission's work in Iraq has been plagued by coordinated efforts to thwart full discovery of Iraq's proscribed programmes. These policies and actions began immediately following the adoption of Security Council resolution 687 (1991). It is against this backdrop that the significant positive and negative results described in the weapons annexes should be seen. What follows is a brief summary of the Commission's current understanding of the evolution of these concealment policies and practices.
2. Immediately following the Gulf war, the Iraqi Presidency collected reports on weapons remaining with Iraq's Armed Forces after the war, including its weapons prohibited by recently adopted resolution 687(1991). Such documents were provided to the Presidency in the spring of 1991. A decision was taken by a high-level committee (one of whose members was Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Tariq Aziz) to provide to the Commission only a portion of its proscribed weapons, their components and production capabilities and stocks. The policy, as deduced from a range of evidence available to the Commission including the initial false Iraq's declarations, was based on the following Iraqi actions:
-- provide a portion of their extant weapon stocks, with an emphasis on those, which were least modern.
-- retain production capability and the "know-how" documentation necessary to revive programmes when possible
-- conceal the full extent of chemical weapons programmes, including its VX project, and retain production equipment and raw materials
-- conceal the number and type of BW and CW warheads for proscribed missiles
-- conceal indigenous long-range missile production, and retain production capabilities, specifically with respect to guidance systems and missile engines
-- conceal the very existence of its offensive biological weapons programme and retain all production capabilities
3. Iraq had initial success in much of its concealment efforts, but, based, presumably, on early experience with the IAEA and the Special Commission in inspection activities, Iraq, took a subsequent decision in late June of 1991 to eliminate some of these retained proscribed materials, on its own, and in secret and in such a way that precise knowledge about what and how much had been destroyed would not be achievable. This decision and action by the high-level committee was a so-called "unilateral destruction". It was taken following an incident in June 1991 when IAEA inspectors, following an inspection that turned confrontational at Abu Ghraib, obtained photographic evidence of retained nuclear weapons production components.
4. Iraq did not admit to its illegal unilateral destruction until March 1992, approximately nine months after the destruction activities, and even then only after the Commission indicated it had evidence that Iraq retained weapons after its supervised destruction. Iraq states that "The unilateral destruction was carried out entirely unrecorded. No written and no visual records were kept, as it was not foreseen that Iraq needed to prove the destruction to anybody." Such an approach also indicates that Iraq intended to pursue a policy of concealment in its relations with the Commission and the IAEA."
|
FYI - IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency
yahoo : chapstic25
aim : lamant281
[Updated on: Thu, 20 March 2003 12:31] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
