Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Now why did we go to war again?
Author Message
just say no roy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #41
 
<a href='http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,968164,00.html' target='_blank'> still waiting</a>All good things will come in due time.
06-01-2003 12:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigolhawg Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 479
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #42
 
Oh rickheel, it looks like its past October 26. And we still dont have any WMD's. So, my friend, will you hold up your end of the deal and change your signature, or puss out and start making excuses for why you shouldnt have to?

Too bad yall ran off all the liberals around here, looks like youve lost a lot of other people too. Maybe you should worry more about sports since this is a sports message board, but what do I know, I'm just a dipshit liberal, right?
11-01-2003 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #43
 
I love a guy with a good memory! Nice work, Hawg!

Oh, and Kev, I hate to split hairs but Noam Chomsky, in addition to being the most important intellectual alive today, is also an anarcho-syndicalist.

Gaw-lee, Myrna! Them there boys think there's something more liberal than a Democrat! Wooo hoo, that's a hoot, boy! :laugh:
11-03-2003 02:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigolhawg Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 479
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #44
 
Thanks rick.

That was the answer I was expecting.
11-05-2003 01:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #45
 
Man I tell you what, I'm sure glad there's more thinking men over here than those dab-burned librul commies. Those durn pinko commie bastages, they love that Saddam Hussein, think he's a great guy and that's whatcha'll git if'n you vote for any of them librul pinkos runnin' for Presdent.

I'm so glad there's some patriotic Amuricans over here on this here site who love country music like I do and love to see Amurica kick some arse!
Now I'm a Christian and when I'm not in church, or watchin' football, I love to watch TV, especially Fox News. I love to see our brave and valyant soldyers kicking some Iraqi hyde! I know God is getting a big kick out of it too. This shows the whole world that if'n ya step to the U.S. we're gonna kick your butts and send you to the Lord for judgement. That's how great we are, we'll send you to yer maker if'n you mess with us. Ain't we great?!
That is why were so great! If anyone screws up we'll do our Christian duty and drop some bombs on ya and that'll straighten ya out!
11-05-2003 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #46
 
Day 200 something of looking and STILL no Weapons of Mass Distraction. . .er, uh Deception! I mean Destruction! We're the only ones authorized to sell/distribute/have those!

Ring, ring! Answer the phone, Rick!
11-06-2003 04:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nate jonesacc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,215
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation: 6
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #47
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:Man I tell you what, I'm sure glad there's more thinking men over here than those dab-burned librul commies. Those durn pinko commie bastages, they love that Saddam Hussein, think he's a great guy and that's whatcha'll git if'n you vote for any of them librul pinkos runnin' for Presdent.

I'm so glad there's some patriotic Amuricans over here on this here site who love country music like I do and love to see Amurica kick some arse!
Now I'm a Christian and when I'm not in church, or watchin' football, I love to watch TV, especially Fox News. I love to see our brave and valyant soldyers kicking some Iraqi hyde! I know God is getting a big kick out of it too. This shows the whole world that if'n ya step to the U.S. we're gonna kick your butts and send you to the Lord for judgement. That's how great we are, we'll send you to yer maker if'n you mess with us. Ain't we great?!
That is why were so great! If anyone screws up we'll do our Christian duty and drop some bombs on ya and that'll straighten ya out!
Nomination for POST OF THE CENTURY! 04-bow 04-bow 04-bow 04-bow
11-11-2003 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #48
 
I wonder if those 300,000 folks found in the mass grave, including women and children with bullet holes in their heads, would have liked us to come in a bit earlier than we did??? As far as the wmd, that is now secondary in my opinion. They were there, and they were moved to Syria or elsewhere. If you dont believe that, you and your ilk are more obtuse than I ever thought possible.
11-11-2003 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nate jonesacc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,215
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation: 6
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #49
 
RICK... WTF is wrong with you? Just admit you lost the bet! Be a man damn it.
11-11-2003 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #50
 
did anyone hear something,,,??? Damn, that ignore feature does filter out usless noise!
11-11-2003 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #51
 
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/sprj.irq.kay/' target='_blank'>Damn, they sure seem worried about it though,,,, if there is nothing there, why does this happen?</a>
11-11-2003 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #52
 
rickheel Wrote:<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/sprj.irq.kay/' target='_blank'>Damn, they sure seem worried about it though,,,, if there is nothing there, why does this happen?</a>
The gassing of Iran and the Kurds was an illusion. Come on Rick, you should know that.
11-11-2003 01:10 PM
Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #53
 
Why weren't the Hawks screaming to bomb Saddam on behal f of the Kurds and Iranians back in the late 1990s? Why didn't you guys favor dropping bombs on Saddam until after 9/11? Answer: because somebody had to pay!

In the grand scheme of things, the Palestinians are mistreated. The Tutsi's were mistreated as were the Liberians. The Tibetans have been mistreated. And there's people in every country of every land being mistreated by some dictator(s) our foolhardy foreign policies support.

Lastly, the war was not waged to help anyone. Acc. to the President and his administration, we bombed Iraq and took over their nation because they were a threat to us. Actually, it is now coming out that they were hardly a threat, so the GOP is looking for other reasons to justify an unjustifiable quagmire.
In Iraq now, they can be killed and maimed by Americans and Brits rather than Saddam. Ain't we great?!?!?!?!?
11-11-2003 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nate jonesacc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,215
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation: 6
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #54
 
Rick... it's really sad... I used to actually enjoy what you posted, regardless of whether I agreed with you or not... but you've just turned into a worthless flamer.
11-11-2003 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #55
 
RebelKev Wrote:The gassing of Iran and the Kurds was an illusion. Come on Rick, you should know that.
Yeah, the CIA really taught Saddam well, didn't they?

Your tax-money, hard at work, Kev!
11-12-2003 02:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #56
 
joebordenrebel Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:The gassing of Iran and the Kurds was an illusion. Come on Rick, you should know that.
Yeah, the CIA really taught Saddam well, didn't they?

Your tax-money, hard at work, Kev!
That was a Mujahadeen, not Saddam Hussein. Yes, we supported Iraq against Iran. Hell, we also supported the USSR, under Stalin, against Germany. We were also China's ally. ...and Cuba's ally. What's your point? You are using dynamics from the early '80's to justify your stance in '03.
11-12-2003 03:08 PM
Quote this message in a reply
nate jonesacc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,215
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation: 6
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #57
 
RebelKev Wrote:
joebordenrebel Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:The gassing of Iran and the Kurds was an illusion. Come on Rick, you should know that.
Yeah, the CIA really taught Saddam well, didn't they?

Your tax-money, hard at work, Kev!
That was a Mujahadeen, not Saddam Hussein. Yes, we supported Iraq against Iran. Hell, we also supported the USSR, under Stalin, against Germany. We were also China's ally. ...and Cuba's ally. What's your point? You are using dynamics from the early '80's to justify your stance in '03.
I would actually have to agree with RebelKev here...
11-12-2003 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #58
 
Yeah, y'all are so right. Looking at mere history is so IRRELEVANT to today! :laugh:

CIA-->Osama Bin Laden-->US use holy land as base for Gulf War I-->September 11

CIA-->Saddam (friend)-->attacks Kuwait-->Saddam (out of control former friend, now terrorist)

All of these former friends of ours keep popping up in the brutal dictator file. Hmmmm. I wonder how that happened? Can we just not pick good friends?

Saddam Hussein - A CIA Puppet?

Why did the CIA prop up this neo-dictator? Why do they continue to support him today despite the threat of war?

Source: The Tip, 2002-09-02
Candidate: Big Government

After becoming President in January, 1989, Senator Prescott Bush's son, George Herbert Walker Bush - father of our current President - authorized a series of programs that not only armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein but also provided him with technology that assisted in his development of chemical weapons like Sarin gas, and biological weapons, the George W Bush claims he still possesses. Apologists for Bush (the elder) say that after the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s left the region unstable, he was just trying to establish a new balance of power. Not so. Bush directives and policies, including relationships with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the Banca Nacional del Lavoro (BNL) were directly and deliberately responsible for creating the veru army the U.S. fought in 1991.

A story by Russ W. Baker, in the March/April issue of the Colombia Journalism Review (CJR), provides the most compelling overview of Iraqgate that I have seen.

"ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop 'It is becoming increasingly clear,' said a grave Ted Koppel, 'that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy.'"

"Why, then, have some of our top papers provided so little coverage?" Baker poignantly asks.

"The result: Readers who neither grasp nor care about the facts behind facile imagery like The Butcher of Baghdad and Operation Desert Storm. In particular, readers who do not follow the story of the Banca Nacional del Lavoro, which apparently served as a paymaster for Saddam's arms buildup, and thus became a player in the largest bank-fraud case in U.S. history.

"Complex, challenging, mind-boggling stories (from Iran-Contra to the S&L crisis to BCCI) increasingly define our times: yet we don't appear to be getting any better at telling them."

"Much of what Saddam received from the West was not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology -- ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. We've learned that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

"And we've learned that the obscure Atlanta Branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nacional del Lavoro, relying partly on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq.

"In fact, we now know that in February 1990, then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh [appointed by George H.W. Bush] blocked U.S. investigators from traveling to Rome and Istanbul to pursue the case."

"As New York Times columnist William Safire argued last December 7, "Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the Systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [The U.S., Britain, and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator."

While Democrat Henry Gonzales, Chairman of the House Banking Committee during the period, stood as the lone voice in the wilderness in raising alarms about Bush's obvious corruption, the rest of the Congress sheepishly ignored all the signs demanding immediate action. Gonzales' voice reportedly fell silent after his empty car was machine-gunned in a Washington suburb in what passed for a drive-by shooting.

The CJR continues: "Meanwhile, The Village Voice published a major investigation by free-lancer Murray Waas in its December 18, 1990 issue. "That American troops could be killed or maimed because of a covert decision to arm Iraq," Waas wrote, "is the most serious consequence of a U.S. foreign policy formulated and executed in secret, without the advice and consent of the American public."

The L.A. Times, on Feb 23, 1992, dug deep enough to find secret National Security Decision Directives by the Bush Administration in 1989 ordering closer ties with Baghdad and paving the way for $1 billion in new aid. The Times series, co-authored with Waas, emphasized that, "buried deep in a 1991 Washington Press piece - that Secretary of State James Baker, after meeting with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz in October 1989, intervened personally to support U.S. government loans guarantees to Iraq."

Baker's CJR report also noted, "On October 3, the [Wall Street] Journal reported [BNL official Christopher] Drogoul's assertion that the Director General of Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Production had told him, "We are all in this together. The intelligence service of the U.S. government works very closely with the intelligence service of the Iraqi government." Three weeks later, the Journal reported that [Henry] Gonzales "produced a phone-book-sized packet of documents" showing the involvement of U.S. exporting firms. The documents mentioned one "which designed parts for Iraq's howitzers and was financed through BNL."

In the wake of highly suspicious anthrax outbreaks in Florida, just miles from where several of the WTC suicides pilots trained, we add one final note. In his 1998 book "Bringing the War Home" author William Thomas writes, " Under that same [weapons transfer] program, 19 containers of Anthrax bacteria were supplied to Iraq in 1988 by the American Type Culture Collection company, located near Fort Detrick, MD, the site of the US Army's high security germ warfare labs."


In addition yes we've allied with less than desirable people before Saddam. Stalin? We were fighting Hitler, not Iran. We certainly didn't send plans for the Bomb over with our thanks for helping crush that fascist dictator, though. China? Aren't they still our ally? We're certainly sending enough of our factories over there that they ought to be. Cuba? We got THROWN out of Cuba by the revolution there after exploiting them for the entire history of our nation. I don't think we've ever allied with Cuba since Fidel took power.

Anyway, "using dynamics" is a nice way of forgetting that actions have consequences. Saddam didn't just happen out of nowhere. We taught him how to oppress and now we censure him for being so oppressive.

And that, my friends, is D-U-M-B. :chair:
11-13-2003 04:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #59
 
Isn't it funny how our reasons for war have now changed?

October 31, 2003

The Iraq War and Contempt for Democracy

By Noam Chomsky

Establishment critics of the war on Iraq restricted their comments regarding the attack to the administration arguments they took to be seriously intended: disarmament, deterrence, and links to terrorism.

They scarcely made reference to liberation, democratization of the Middle East, and other matters that would render irrelevant the weapons inspections and indeed everything that took place at the Security Council or within governmental domains.

The reason, perhaps, is that they recognized that lofty rhetoric is the obligatory accompaniment of virtually any resort to force and therefore carries no information. The rhetoric is doubly hard to take seriously in the light of the display of contempt for democracy that accompanied it, not to speak of the past record and current practices.

Critics are also aware that nothing has been heard from the present incumbents -- with their alleged concern for Iraqi democracy -- to indicate that they have any regrets for their previous support for Saddam Hussein (or others like him, still continuing) nor have they shown any signs of contrition for having helped him develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when he really was a serious danger.

Nor has the current leadership explained when, or why, they abandoned their 1991 view that "the best of all worlds" would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein" that would rule as Saddam did but not make the error of judgment in August 1990 that ruined Saddam's record.

At the time, the incumbents' British allies were in the opposition and therefore more free than the Thatcherites to speak out against Saddam's British-backed crimes. Their names are noteworthy by their absence from the parliamentary record of protests against these crimes, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, and other leading figures of New Labour.

In December 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign minister, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes. It was drawn almost entirely from the period of firm US-UK support, a fact overlooked with the usual display of moral integrity. The timing and quality of the dossier raised many questions, but those aside, Straw failed to provide an explanation for his very recent conversion to skepticism about Saddam Hussein's good character and behavior.

When Straw was home secretary in 2001, an Iraqi who fled to England after detention and torture requested asylum. Straw denied his request. The Home Office explained that Straw "is aware that Iraq, and in particular the Iraqi security forces, would only convict and sentence a person in the courts with the provision of proper jurisdiction," so that "you could expect to receive a fair trial under an independent and properly constituted judiciary."

Straw's conversion must, then, have been rather similar to President Clinton's discovery, sometime between September 8 and 11, 1999, that Indonesia had done some unpleasant things in East Timor in the past twenty-five years when it enjoyed decisive support from the US and Britain.

Attitudes toward democracy were revealed with unusual clarity during the mobilization for war in the fall of 2002, as it became necessary to deal somehow with the overwhelming popular opposition.

Within the "coalition of the willing," the US public was at least partially controlled by the propaganda campaign unleashed in September. In Britain, the population was split roughly fifty-fifty on the war, but the government maintained the stance of "junior partner" it had accepted reluctantly after World War II and had kept to even in the face of the contemptuous dismissal of British concerns by US leaders at moments when the country's very survival was at stake.

Outside the two full members of the coalition, problems were more serious. In the two major European countries, Germany and France, the official government stands corresponded to the views of the large majority of their populations, which unequivocally opposed the war. That led to bitter condemnation by Washington and many commentators.

Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the offending nations as just the "Old Europe," of no concern because of their reluctance to toe Washington's line. The "New Europe" is symbolized by Italy, whose prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was visiting the White House. It was, evidently, unproblematic that public opinion in Italy was overwhelmingly opposed to the war.

The governments of Old and New Europe were distinguished by a simple criterion: a government joined Old Europe in its iniquity if and only if it took the same position as the vast majority of its population and refused to follow orders from Washington.

Recall that the self-appointed rulers of the world -- Bush, Powell, and the rest -- had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else "catches up" and "becomes relevant." Old Europe, mired in irrelevance, did not catch up. Neither did New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.

Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands).

Particularly interesting are the eight countries whose leaders declared themselves to be the New Europe, to much acclaim for their courage and integrity. Their declaration took the form of a statement calling on the Security Council to ensure "full compliance with its resolutions," without specifying the means.

Their announcement threatened "to isolate the Germans and French," the press reported triumphantly, though the positions of New and Old Europe were in fact scarcely different. To ensure that Germany and France would be "isolated," they were not invited to sign the bold pronouncement of New Europe -- apparently for fear that they would do so, it was later quietly indicated.

The standard interpretation is that the exciting and promising New Europe stood behind Washington, thus demonstrating that "many Europeans supported the United States' view, even if France and Germany did not."

Who were these "many Europeans"? Checking polls, we find that in New Europe, opposition to "the United States' view" was for the most part even higher than in France and Germany, particularly in Italy and Spain, which were singled out for praise for their leadership of New Europe.

Happily for Washington, former communist countries too joined New Europe. Within them, support for the "United States' view," as defined by Powell -- namely, war by the "coalition of the willing" without UN authorization -- ranged from 4 percent (Macedonia) to 11 percent (Romania).

Support for a war even with a UN mandate was also very low. Latvia's former foreign minister explained that we have to "salute and shout, 'Yes sir.' . . . We have to please America no matter what the cost."

In brief, in journals that regard democracy as a significant value, headlines would have read that Old Europe in fact included the vast majority of Europeans, East and West, while New Europe consisted of a few leaders who chose to line up (ambiguously) with Washington, disregarding the overwhelming opinion of their own populations.

But actual reporting was mostly scattered and oblique, depicting opposition to the war as a marketing problem for Washington.

Toward the liberal end of the spectrum, Richard Holbrooke stressed the "very important point [that] if you add up the population of [the eight countries of the original New Europe], it was larger than the population of those countries not signing the letter." True enough, though something is omitted: the populations were overwhelmingly opposed to the war, mostly even more so than in those countries dismissed as Old Europe.

At the other extreme of the spectrum, the editors of the Wall Street Journal applauded the statement of the eight original signers for "exposing as fraudulent the conventional wisdom that France and Germany speak for all of Europe, and that all of Europe is now anti-American."

The eight honorable New European leaders showed that "the views of the Continent's pro-American majority weren't being heard," apart from the editorial pages of the Journal, now vindicated. The editors blasted the media to their "left" -- a rather substantial segment -- which "peddled as true" the ridiculous idea that France and Germany spoke for Europe, when they were clearly a pitiful minority, and peddled these lies "because they served the political purposes of those, both in Europe and America, who oppose President Bush on Iraq."

This conclusion does hold if we exclude Europeans from Europe, rejecting the radical left doctrine that people have some kind of role in democratic societies.

Noam Chomsky is the author, most recently, of Hegemony or Survival:

America's Quest for Global Dominance, from which this commentary is adapted. For more information on the book, published by Metropolitan Books, see <a href='http://www.hegemonyorsurvival.net' target='_blank'>http://www.hegemonyorsurvival.net</a>.

Still my favorite thread on this whole thread. . .what an oldie and a goodie. Can we nominate it for archival status?
12-22-2003 03:16 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.