quote: The tenor of the town meeting was mostly what one might expect, but during the question-and-answer period, a veteran injured in Afghanistan stood up to offer his view. "If I didn't have a herniated disc, I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops," said Mark Seavey, a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan. "I know you keep saying how you have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back despite the hardships. . . ."
quote: . That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."
quote: The morale of the trigger-pulling class of today's fighting force is strong. Unfortunately, we have not had a microphone or media audience willing to report our comments.
04-13-06, 06:02 PM DorianGreyed "When he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq..."
This is a misrepresentation of what Murtha said. While I don't remember his exact words, and don't have the time right now to get them, essentialy, Murtha said that we should withdraw as soon as it was practicable. Murtha's opponents, of course, don't make that distinction when speaking about his words. With slight changes, that is what we seem to be doing. We have already decided that we won't intervene in the civil war there, even though if one side wins, we will get a worse (for the US) government than there was before we invaded. After it was finally determined that there were no WMDs, that there was no meaningful relationship with al Qeada, the administration then sold the idea that we went in for humanitarian reasons, ignoring the fact that those humanitarian concerns were, at best, 15 years after the fact. It was after all the other stated reasons for the war had been proven false, knowingly false, that bringing democracy to Itaq was mentioned. Does anyone really think that the religious theocracy that Iraq wull end up with was what we went in to give them?
I have no doubt that the majority of troops support this war. I do suspect that, if they were not in the service, if they didn't serve with troops in the war, that quite a few would feel differently. One thing is certain; those there have a strong motivation for supporting it. If they felt it was wrong, it most certainly would be much more difficult to deal with it. I can't imagine that anyone wants to risk his or her life in a cause that they didn't believe in. The US military's duty is to serve. Further, all the brass saw what happened to a general who questioned the plans. Was it Shinski whose replacement, against all previous practices, was named before he retired. effectively rendering him redundant? We must also remember that this is not a conscripted military, but a volunteer one. Even so, many chose not "un-volunteer" even to the point of going to court to fight the "back door draft."
This administration, and some of the military, have done an excellent job of selling this war. Of course, the military would rise to the defense of the US against a man who would arm terrorist with biochemical or nuclear weapons. The country, too, would support that war. But what the military, and the country, was told was not the truth. Would the military be so supportive of the war if they would have been told the truth? Would the military been so supportive had they been told, "You are going in to fight and some of you will die so that Iraq can have a religious theocracy that will in truth harbor, help train, and arm terrorists that will fight against the US"? Would the military be supportive of that truthful statement? Would the military have been so supportive of the war had they been told "You will create more terrorists than you will kill" or "You will leave Iraq worse off than you found it"?
While I can't be sure of all the wars that the US has fought, as a historian, I can say that I have never seen retired generals speak this way after leaving a war. I have never read about retired generals admitting that the entire war was mis-planned, and shouldn't have been entered into. Not while the war was still going on.
No one here, unless I am mistaken, has indicated that the majority of the military is against the war. I don't think the majority of the military was against the Vietnam War at any time. But that war, too, was entered into under false pretenses. We were told that if we allowed the Communists to take over, soon enough they would be in Hawaii and California. "Better to fight the Commies there than here!" Well, Scotty's and a very few other's opinion to the contrary, we lost that war. The "Commies" did take over South Vietnam. But Hawaii is fine, and the current governor of California's father probably worked for the Nazis (It's hard to get more "not Communist" than that.), and Americans now vacation in Vietnam. Almost all of us now realize what a disaster that war was for the US.
No one here, unless I am mistaken, has said that the majority of the military is against the war. Not yet. But, if things keep going the way they have been, those in the military against the war will grow, and some will speak out, at the risk of their careers. The majority of the country finally realizes that they were lied to, and that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. It is only a matter of time before more in the military will speak out. Sooner or later, more will be sickened at what this administration has done to our country and our military. Support the troops? I support them so much I hate the men who put them in a no-win situation without a just cause.
04-13-06, 07:30 PM newnickname It's an interesting article, and notable that it's published in that bed-wetting liberals' paper, the Washington Post.
I thought the reason these (ex-) Generals, and other soldiers who criticise the invasion, get attention is that it's unexpected. Military people have a tradition of not breaking ranks, and not criticising superiors or their decisions, publicly. It's a man-bites-dog story. The media could find any number of long-haired beatniks willing to criticise Rumsfeld et al, but so what? A general, doing so though, is newsworthy.
I guess if they could find a hippy with flowers in his hair supporting the decision to invade Iraq, that might be worth a news story - but are there any?
As more and more people realise that the war was begun for no good reason, and major decisions taken about its prosecution were mistaken, the supply of Bush supporters could be drying up.
From the original article:
quote: Murtha undoubtedly knows full well that the greatest single thing that drags on morale in war is the loss of a buddy. But second to that is politicians questioning, in amplified tones, the validity of that loss to our families, colleagues, the nation and the world.
This begs a question. Was the invasion of Iraq, and therefore the consequent losses, valid? If there was no valid reason to invade Iraq (and we haven't heard one yet) then surely people should be speaking up, as the losses are a tragic, even criminal, waste of life.
04-14-06, 10:41 AM Momma Angel I am just glad to see someone say something good about the troops.
I say God Bless America! God Bless Our Troops! Support our Troops! They are there; they need us.
Help a family of the troops!
04-14-06, 12:06 PM newnickname I don't think the people being criticised in the original article were saying anything bad about the troops. Criticism seems to be aimed at the decision to go to war, the strategic mistakes made in doing so, and the vagueness of the current mission in Iraq. Equating criticism of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bremer et al with criticism of the troops is precisely the trick Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bremer et al have been trying to pull.
Take the Charge of the Light Brigade - an event far enough in the past that we can look at it unemotionally, maybe; no one questions the personal gallantry or bravery of the troops involved, but everyone now accepts it was a horrible mistake. Or how about those millions who walked into machine-gun fire from the trenches in WWI? The war was pointless, the orders tragically wrongheaded, but the young men were brave and (initially) with the best of morale.
The criticism of the civilian command by some US soldiers is a little like the proverbial dog walking on its hind legs. With the dog, we're not worried about how well it walks that way, but surprised that it does it at all. With the soldiers, the question of how well they represent the views of the army is not so striking as the fact that a significant number of soldiers of significant standing are publicly criticising the government at all. Surely that's a sign that there's something going badly wrong somewhere.
04-14-06, 01:16 PM DorianGreyed "Or how about those millions who walked into machine-gun fire from the trenches in WWI? The war was pointless, the orders tragically wrongheaded, but the young men were brave and (initially) with the best of morale."
My vote for the bravest WWI soldier is that unnamed Frenchman who shot the captain of his unit, after the captain kept ordering his men to launch the mustard gas at the Germans, who were upwind of the French forces.
04-14-06, 01:31 PM Momma Angel Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting a young soldier that returned from Iraq in August. We were in a chat room and the discussion had turned to the war, the troops, and politics.
This soldier came to the mic and said, "I would like to say something. I just got back from Iraq in August and from what you are saying, you have no idea of what it is like for the troops there." He spent the next hour or so explaining to us how the soldiers view the war, some of the things they go through, their state of mind, etc.
It was probably the most inspiring thing I've ever heard. Everyone just listened and let him talk, which is almost unheard of in that particular chat room.
That soldier changed a lot of views yesterday. He didn't talk about the politics of the war. He talked about what the soldiers are actually facing and how they deal with it on a day to day basis.
It's very difficult doing what they do, but they are proud and honored to be serving their country and fighting for our freedom. And yes, to them, that is what they are doing.
04-14-06, 01:51 PM aminator2002 I am glad that is what they think they are doing and I hope they continue to do the job they've been assigned, but just how are we, civilians, expected to swallow the idea that they are actually fighting for our freedom? What exactly do non-military people who say that really think that means?
I would like an explanation and trust me that I think anyone who has been sent over to Iraq and has done the job handed to them deserves our respect and support, but I just can't understand people that say things like "they are fighting for our freedom." They may be fighting for the Iraqis freedom... they may be fighting to establish a peaceful democracy in Iraq, but what could possibly be the connection to "our freedom" in this concept?
Do you think they would respect the American people's opinions about what this war is worth if they got out and found out that our country had bankrupted itself for "our freedom" in Iraq?
04-14-06, 02:11 PM newnickname Yes - what threat was Hussein's Iraq to US freedom? Except in the vaguest and most speculative of terms, that is.
What kind of things did the young soldier say he had been doing? If it was chat room, and not a real room, can you give us a link to it?
04-14-06, 02:20 PM Scotty
quote: It's very difficult doing what they do, but they are proud and honored to be serving their country and fighting for our freedom. And yes, to them, that is what they are doing.
This is very true, and if you don't think that they are fighting for your freedom, what would you do if we didn't have them to protect this Country? Thank God that we have these professionals that are willing to put their lives on the line to protect you and me.
04-14-06, 02:28 PM Momma Angel The soldiers are fighting for our freedom. They fight for the freedom of many. The principles upon which this country was founded are the basis of those freedoms. Fighting enemies on foreign soil doesn't mean they don't fight for our freedom. Somewhere down the road, someone will threaten the freedoms of the US again and our soldiers will be there. In fighting on foreign soil it is a message being sent that we will not tolerate this kind of thing for our country and are willing to help others that also won't tolerate it.
Unfortunately, war is a necessity in life. I don't like it, but it's obviously true. We have never gone without one.
I choose to support the troops. I choose to acknowledge them for what they do. I don't choose to get into the politics behind the war. My most effective weapon in that case is my vote.
04-14-06, 02:41 PM Momma Angel God Bless you Scotty!
04-14-06, 02:43 PM Momma Angel Newnickname,
Hey, I can do better than give you a link to the chat room. Would you like to talk to that soldier? You have an instant messenger? Hope this doesn't get me in trouble but my yahoo ID is ******. If you want to talk to the soldier, IM me. We can do a voicechat!
I am sure he'd be happy to tell you just what he told the rest of us yesterday.
To ensure your internet safety, please do not post your IM ID in open forums.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Karrow, 04-14-06 05:20 PM 04-14-06, 02:58 PM
Koz DG said:
quote: “I have no doubt that the majority of troops support this war. I do suspect that, if they were not in the service, if they didn't serve with troops in the war, that quite a few would feel differently.”
Sorry DG, too many “if” and assumptions for me. I am not currently in the service, I didn’t serve in this war and I don’t feel differently. Make no mistake about the fact I was against this war from the very time I heard rumors about it back in 2001. Once the boots hit the sand I stand behind those over there 100%. That has not changed.
I can understand having to risk my life and those of my brothers in a cause I don’t believe in because I have done it, no questions asked as to “why” I was sent there. That was not my place. The ones with their fingers on the trigger do not make policy and decide where they go to assist people and fight wars. They do their jobs and protect their brothers at all cost. The politics of the reason they are sent there have nothing to do with it to most all of them.
I sincerely believe that you are wrong in your assumption that the majority of the military might turn against this war as it drags on, and on, and on. There will always be those willing, and proud to serve. I agree that there will be some more that will speak out. It is quite a large organization that employs over a million people; it is inevitable some will speak out. Those are the ones we hear a lot of. We don’t hear often enough in my opinion about the ones willing to go and even volunteering for third and fourth tours. (I personally know a few) That is why I posted this article from an obviously left leaning publication as The Washington Post. I won’t go as far to call it what NNN called it a “bed-wetting liberals' paper” but it leans left none the less. (and yes I understand sarcasm)
I make my opinion on the support and moral of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan by talking to them, not from what I read in the paper or hear some tell me second hand. To those that think that moral is low amongst the enlisted personnel, I respectfully disagree.
Momma Angel said:
quote: “He spent the next hour or so explaining to us how the soldiers view the war, some of the things they go through, their state of mind, etc.”
and
quote: “That soldier changed a lot of views yesterday. He didn't talk about the politics of the war. He talked about what the soldiers are actually facing and how they deal with it on a day to day basis. “
I am glad you had that opportunity Momma Angel. I hope you get the chance to meet and talk face to face with a man like that Soldier. Most service folks I know will jump at the chance to talk about life in The Sandbox. You probably won’t hear too many graphic details, but more likely the daily interaction stories between a very tight group of people who care very much about each other.
I have no link for you NNN but I would be willing to record (if permitted) my weekly chat with a man undergoing a lot of rehabilitation hoping someday to walk under his own power again and make a transcript of it. He is a young man who was severely injured in Iraq last year and still dreams of rejoining his unit. He knows the chances are slim to none but he wants to be with his brothers very badly. He suffers from survivor’s guilt amongst his physical injuries; I try to help him with that part of his rehabilitation. Granted it will be mostly boring to read, seeing his eyes and facial expressions as he tells some stories is priceless though.
04-14-06, 03:16 PM Momma Angel Amen to that Koz. God Bless You!
How can I contact you? I'd like to discuss something with you but don't know if I can give my email here or not.
woo hoo! I found your email on your profile. May I email you?
04-14-06, 03:36 PM Koz
quote: woo hoo! I found your email on your profile. May I email you?
Feel free to do so
04-14-06, 03:47 PM Scotty Thank you Momma and Koz for the great posts, your attitudes about our troops is the attitude every American should have.
Koz and I, can probably tell you what this soldier had to say without even listening to him say anything. Having been in combat, it is truly a band of brothers, and we all feel the same way about our service, and each other. I can almost feel his devotion to duty, and his pride in doing a good job for the Country he loves. I can feel his feeling of anxiousness, fear, excitement, sorrow, pain, happiness, and so many other emotions that go along with combat service. They need to know that the people of this Country is standing behind them.God bless them all. May they come home soon.
04-14-06, 04:37 PM Momma Angel Scotty,
Can I email you? Would love to chat.
04-14-06, 04:40 PM newnickname
quote: In fighting on foreign soil it is a message being sent that we will not tolerate this kind of thing for our country and are willing to help others that also won't tolerate it.
What is "this kind of thing"? What is the "it" that isn't tolerated? How was Hussein's Iraq threatening the freedoms of the US? Why was Iraq invaded?
Of course people sympathise with the US, and other, troops and can applaud their bravery. The point is that no one seems to be criticising the troops; they are criticising the decision to invade Iraq, and the poor planning of that invasion.
quote:
Well, Scotty's and a very few other's opinion to the contrary, we lost that war. The "Commies" did take over South Vietnam
My opinion is not that we lost the war, but we were not allowed to win the war. Big difference in my opinion.
04-14-06, 05:24 PM Scotty
quote: Can I email you? Would love to chat.
You certainly can.
04-14-06, 05:31 PM newnickname
quote: ...everyone, as human beings, should stand up and say "we will not tolerate this kind of thing."
Well, of course. But the US does tolerate that kind of thing. In fact it has even encouraged it, in some countries.
The invasion of Iraq was not about sending a message to the tyrants of the world; in fact they're all feeling a little more secure as the US army, thanks to Rumsfeld & Co's incompetence, is bogged down fighting an insurgency, trying to identify the religious fanatics, and policing sectarian mayhem in Iraq. The message the world has taken is that Iraq was militarily weak and strategically important - and the US does what it likes.
Bombing Iraq to bits, and then bungling a coup d'etat (with an attempted asset grab thrown in) was not the best way to advance global human rights. If I was oppressed, I'd want someone to stand with me - not lob bombs at me, try to take over my country's assets, create the conditions for anarchy, and tell me what government I should have.
04-14-06, 05:34 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Momma Angel: Newnickname,
When any country is oppressed as the Iraqi people are, when they are being denied their rights as human beings, everyone, as human beings, should stand up and say "we will not tolerate this kind of thing." If you were oppressed, wouldn't you want someone to stand with you?
That's a pretty big brief you are giving the American forces. Where next for them? The list of places where people are oppressed is a very long one. (Incidentally, why was Iraq at the head of it? Or was it that 'oppression' was the last thing on the Administration's mind, if it figured in the mind at all ? )
04-14-06, 06:03 PM Momma Angel I'm sorry everyone, but I cannot and will not get into the politics of this war.
I focus on the fact that our troops are there and because they are there, they and their families need our support.
I intend to see that I do that to the best of my ability.
04-14-06, 06:05 PM Momma Angel Uh Scotty, your email address is not on your profile. Wink
04-14-06, 06:28 PM newnickname
quote: When any country is oppressed as the Iraqi people are, when they are being denied their rights as human beings, everyone, as human beings, should stand up and say "we will not tolerate this kind of thing." If you were oppressed, wouldn't you want someone to stand with you?
That is getting into the politics of the war. You can and you did.
04-14-06, 07:02 PM Momma Angel You know what, Nickname? You're right. I didn't realize I had made such a political statement.
Although I can't and won't retract it, I do have to refrain from discussing it any further.
I hope you understand.
04-14-06, 07:04 PM methos Here's the thing, Momma Angel: you're continuously linking "get[ting] into the politics of this war" with supporting the troops. Are the two mutually exclusive?
04-14-06, 07:18 PM Momma Angel Methos,
You don't believe it's possible to offer encouragement, support, etc., to a soldier without getting into the politics of the war?
Do you think I discuss that with them? I don't. I talk to them about how much they miss their families. I talk to them about how frightened they are sometimes. I talk to them about how proud they are to be serving their country because it's what they vowed to do. I talk to them about how proud I am that they are willing to lay their lives down for the rest of us, for the rights we all enjoy, for the very fact that we can discuss this.
So yes, I can support the troops without getting into the politics. I make no judgments about whether they should be there or not. That's not what they need. They need to know that we are behind them because of their love for this country and their countrymen.
My best weapon is my vote. If I have problems with the war, then I vote for those that would support my position. If I don't have problems with it, then I vote for those. But, until each and every one of our men and women are once again on our home soil, I will support them with everything in me. I will back them 100%.
04-14-06, 07:18 PM Karrow
quote: Originally posted by Momma Angel: Uh Scotty, your email address is not on your profile. Wink
As neither Momma Angel or Scotty have their e-mail address in their public profile, I will send their addresses to each providing both give permission. My address is in my profile if you both want to contact me.
I have done this before at the request of members, but will not under any circumstances do so unless it is requested by both parties. We never divulge e-mail adresses to anyone, including advertisers who offer to buy them.
04-14-06, 07:19 PM Momma Angel Bless you karrow. I will send you my email address and please do send it to Scotty. I tried to find how to put my email address on my profile but I'm lost.
04-14-06, 07:21 PM Karrow Momma Angel, I already have your e-mail address as the site requires this when you register. I'll send it to Scotty.
If you are unable to add your e-mail address to the public part of your profile, let me know and I'll do it for you.
04-14-06, 07:26 PM methos "You don't believe it's possible to offer encouragement, support, etc., to a soldier without getting into the politics of the war?"
HUH?
You're the one who keeps linking the two ideas, writing that you "refuse" to discuss the politics of the war here with us, explaining that you support the troops. My question was: what on Earth does one have to do with the other? Why can't I do both?
04-14-06, 07:31 PM Momma Angel Man! Where the heck is my brain today! Of course you have my email! Please do add it on my profile. I can't seem to get it to work! Thanx so much Karrow!
04-14-06, 07:36 PM Momma Angel Methos,
I completely misunderstood! Of course you can do both. I'm thrilled that you can do both. I wish I could really get into the politics Methos, I really do. I have very strong views on the war. but, because of my organization, I cannot get into the politics and the Board of Directors would probably have my head for saying what I have already!
04-14-06, 07:38 PM DorianGreyed Sorry about that sentence, Koz. Too many "ifs".
I don't disagree that it is unlikely that the majority of the military will be against the war. As you pointed out (and I tried to reference), it is the military's job to serve. With today's volunteer military, fewer are likely to speak out than did in Vietnam; after all, those there today did join willingly. Further, even those who disagree with the war have had instilled in them that complaining is for someone else. A few lines from the poem about the above-mentioned Charge of the Light Brigade seem to fit here.
`Forward the Light Brigade!' Was there a man dismay'd? Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
I have said before that it is not a good thing for soldiers to make policy, that they are necessarily trained to follow orders without question. This makes it all the more striking that those generals, even though retired, speak out. They are going againg the training of their entire career. As I pointed out above, Gen. Shinski found out what happens to those who disagree with the administration's policies. When more active duty personnal speak out, it must be obvious to all that something is very wrong with how things are being done.
"The point is that no one seems to be criticising the troops; they are criticising the decision to invade Iraq, and the poor planning of that invasion."
Those that support what this administration has done obviously can't logically rebut what the critics of the administration say, so what else can they say but that the critics don't support the troops.
At least Scotty has yet to say in this thread, "The US military is the best equipped and best trained military in the world." Even that got to difficult to sell once it came out that the US gave most of their allies all the more up-to-date body armor and armored Humvees they wanted in order to get them to join "The Coalition of the Willing."
04-14-06, 11:03 PM aminator2002 I just want to say that I totally agree with what Koz has said, and want to point out that at no point has he said that civilians should not discuss the politics of war. I think it is wrong for people to use "morale of the troops" in a political discussion, but I certainly believe that since we live in a democracy it is vital to discuss the politics and justification of the war.
Whether people like it or not, we, as citizens of a democracy, are being held accountable for our leaders actions. Especially so, if we reelect a leader... it is a vote of confidence for their past actions and therefore people outside our country have good justification for at least holding those folks that voted for the politician that is running the show accountable. And somehow the same people that object to political discussion are the same that are suprised when Americans are mistreated abroad... it really isn't that shocking.
04-14-06, 11:20 PM Momma Angel I just want to make one thing perfectly clear here. The only reason I won't go into the politics (any further than I have) is because of my organization.
Otherwise, I'd be out there with my big mouth probably getting into all kinds of trouble. Cool
04-15-06, 10:28 AM aminator2002 Troops in Support Of the War You must be part of the Bush organization then. Big Grin
04-15-06, 11:21 AM newnickname Another article from a 'liberal' publication which points to reasonable morale and effectiveness on the part of US troops in Iraq:
'In Colorado, McMaster and his officers, most of them veterans of the war’s first year, improvised a new way to train for Iraq. Instead of preparing for tank battles, the regiment bought dozens of Arab dishdashas, which the Americans call “man dresses,” and acted out a variety of realistic scenarios, with soldiers and Arab-Americans playing the role of Iraqis. “We need training that puts soldiers in situations where they need to make extremely tough choices,” Captain Sellars, the troop commander, said. “What are they going to see at the traffic control point? They’re possibly going to have a walk-up suicide bomber—O.K., let’s train that. They’re going to have an irate drunk guy that is of no real threat—let’s train that. They’re going to have a pregnant lady that needs to get through the checkpoint faster—O.K., let’s train that.” Pictures of Shiite saints and politicians were hung on the walls of a house, and soldiers were asked to draw conclusions about the occupants. Soldiers searching the house were given the information they wanted only after they had sat down with the occupants three or four times, accepted tea, and asked the right questions. Soldiers filmed the scenarios and, afterward, analyzed body language and conversational tone. McMaster ordered his soldiers never to swear in front of Iraqis or call them “hajjis” in a derogatory way (this war’s version of “gook”). Some were selected to take three-week courses in Arabic language and culture; hundreds of copies of “The Modern History of Iraq,” by Phebe Marr, were shipped to Fort Carson...'www.newyorker.com
The article, however, is also very critical of decisions made higher up the chain of command. It points out how Rumsfeld and others made disastrous errors of judgement, allowing things to get so out of hand.
And, of course, imaginative and effective training on the part of relatively junior officers - trying to make the best of a bad job - does not mean that the war was justified or legal. The subsequent sensible actions of a few good soldiers do not mean that there was any good reason to invade Iraq in the first place.
It is possible to see some good in the actions of individual soldiers or units, while also condemning the invasion of Iraq. Simply saying "God Bless America!", and rejecting attempts to suggest anything more sophisticated about the situation, is blind, jingoistic Bushism.
12-30-06, 11:22 AM newnickname 'The American military - once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war - has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war - in 2004 - 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent...'www.armytimes.com
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3633 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
