�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| The Choice on Iraq - |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
dithers
 Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:05 am |
|
|
|
The Choice on Iraq
The Choice on Iraq
"I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next."
BY JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
Monday, February 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare--trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.
What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security--meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.
Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.
The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.
At least four of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad--the same neighborhoods where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in--and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.
We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.
I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.
We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent senator from Connecticut.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009715
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Oh yeah, advice from the Orthodox Jewish Senator from Israel. I am getting so sick and tired of some of the neo-cons shill-ing for Israeli foreign policy, rather than promoting what is in the best interest of the U.S.
U.S. foreign policy towards Israel should be like our foreign policy towards Taiwan: While we support both countries' autonomy, as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson advised, Good will and commerce with all nations, but no entangling foreign alliances.
Now I’m waiting for the inevitable and ludicrous screams of anti-semitism.
Real Breaking news: VP Cheney makes surprise visit to Pakistan. http://www.kcra.com/news/11110185/detail.html
CNN Headline news is reporting that he is also visiting Afghanistan.
Even “can’t shoot straight” has finally figured out where the real threat to the U.S. comes from.
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
| apodixis wrote: | Oh yeah, advice from the Orthodox Jewish Senator from Israel. I am getting so sick and tired of some of the neo-cons shill-ing for Israeli foreign policy, rather than promoting what is in the best interest of the U.S.
U.S. foreign policy towards Israel should be like our foreign policy towards Taiwan: While we support both countries' autonomy, as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson advised, Good will and commerce with all nations, but no entangling foreign alliances.
Now I’m waiting for the inevitable and ludicrous screams of anti-semitism.
Real Breaking news: VP Cheney makes surprise visit to Pakistan. http://www.kcra.com/news/11110185/detail.html
Even “can’t shoot straight” has finally figured out where the real threat to the U.S. comes from. |
Well, wait no more 'cause here I am.
Hmmm, according to his bio, Lieberman was born and remains an American citizen. He's not from Israel.
From Wikipedia | Quote: | | (Lieberman was born in Stamford, Connecticut, to Henry Lieberman (April 3, 1915 — January 3, 1986), the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, and Marcia Manger (November 1, 1914 — June 25, 2005), of Austrian Jewish background. The Liebermans owned the Hamilton Liquor Store, which the couple operated until Henry Lieberman's retirement in 1977. [3] Along with Joseph the couple had two daughters, Rietta Miller and Ellen Lieberman. Joe Lieberman attended Stamford High School and was elected president of his senior class in 1960. [4] In the fall of 1963, Lieberman traveled to Mississippi for several weeks, helping African-Americans register to vote. [5]) |
Who granted you the title of the Great Omnipotent One who alone knows what is in the best interest of the U.S.? Your assumption that your's is the only correct path for this country is highly outrageous and insulting.
You may be tired of the neo-cons shilling for this, that or the other but I'm equally as fed up with Liberals assuming their way of thinking is the only right way for America and the world.
I won't give you the satisfaction of calling you an anti-Semite but, yes, I found your remarks to be rather insulting and quite a surprise. I had you pegged for being more open-minded. Aren't you the one who carries around the banner of free speech for all?
Perhaps you are really Harry Tho posting here at RU under another name.
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
You calling me a Liberal ? I protest that insult  .
Of course I knew that Lieberman was not born in Israel. We definitely need a sarcasm emoticon at RU.
“I won't give you the satisfaction of calling you an anti-Semite but, yes, I found your remarks to be rather insulting and quite a surprise. I had you pegged for being more open-minded. Aren't you the one who carries around the banner of free speech for all?”
Yes, and I am exercising my open-mindedness and freedom of speech in regard to Senator Lieberman and what is the appropriate U.S. foreign policy.
Tho, I am not Harry .
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
| apodixis wrote: | Oh yeah, advice from the Orthodox Jewish Senator from Israel. I am getting so sick and tired of some of the neo-cons shill-ing for Israeli foreign policy, rather than promoting what is in the best interest of the U.S.
U.S. foreign policy towards Israel should be like our foreign policy towards Taiwan: While we support both countries' autonomy, as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson advised, Good will and commerce with all nations, but no entangling foreign alliances.
Now I’m waiting for the inevitable and ludicrous screams of anti-semitism.
Real Breaking news: VP Cheney makes surprise visit to Pakistan. http://www.kcra.com/news/11110185/detail.html
CNN Headline news is reporting that he is also visiting Afghanistan.
Even “can’t shoot straight” has finally figured out where the real threat to the U.S. comes from. |
1. Joe Lieberman was born in America. What is this -- from Israel?
2. No entangling foreign alliances as envisioned by Washington and Jefferson may have been possible in the early 1800s, but does not seem pragmatic in the 21st century.
It is quite foolish to believe that America's naked self-interests are not served by our alliance and support of Israel and that we are only there because "neocons are shilling for Israeli foreign policy." We aren't as altruistic as it may seem. It does serve America's interest to support Israel and that is why we do it.
3. Are you an anti-Semite? Only you know that.
I think though that it would be possible for you to have disagreed with our present stance toward Israel without the mention of neocons shilling for Israeli foreign policy. In other words, it isn't what you said but the way you said it that is more than suspect IMO.
I too am disappointed with your post.
YIF
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:09 pm |
|
|
|
I'm a bit suspicious as to whether or not Apo is simply trying to stir things up a bit here just for the sake of some excitement somewhere other than the ANS thread.
Apodixis - Are you guilty as charged or do you have something to say for yourself?   
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Well, first of all I have not replied because I have been PMing VC and Fashonista trying to find out where this thread went from the News forum.
And of course I knew that even simply criticizing Neo-cons or their liberal policies is sometimes attacked by the U.S. Israeli lobby as anti-semitic.
But I did not do it just to stir things up. Rather I expect a reasoned debate on our policy vis-à-vis Israel. For example, when the U.S. supplies Israel with cluster bombs that kill innocent Lebanese civilians, that policy creates terrorists who will attack us.
YIF “It does serve America's interest to support Israel and that is why we do it.” Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t, as the paragraph above points out.
YIF “1. Joe Lieberman was born in America. What is this -- from Israel?” Its sarcasm.
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Getting back to the Leiberman letter.
Why can't his plea be seen as a voice of reason. Someone who's saying "Let's give Gen. Petraeus a chance."?
Why can't he be seen as a voice of conciliation who is simply trying to bridge the gap between the two sides?
I don't care which side one comes down on this issue, I'm sure we all admit and agree with JoeL that much of this is nothing more than politicking(sp?) on everyone's part.
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
YIF wrote above “2. No entangling foreign alliances as envisioned by Washington and Jefferson may have been possible in the early 1800s, but does not seem pragmatic in the 21st century.”
In WWI 20 million people died because one Serbian aristocrat was shot, and several European countries had entangling alliances that required them to go to war with the countries that the shooters came from. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - in the 21st century.
Dithers wrote above: “Why can't his plea be seen as a voice of reason. Someone who's saying "Let's give Gen. Petraeus a chance."?”
I agree that we should give the Iraq surge a chance for a few months, but only if the administration tells the American people what that “chance” means. A Democrat plan calls for turning over security for Baghdad and the Sunni triangle to the Iraquis within three months. It has some other sensible components that I’ll look up and post.
The Brits have figured this out: They are pulling their troops out of southern Iraq and moving them to Afganistan where the real terrorist threat lies.
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:20 am |
|
|
|
I think that it was moved, Apo, because it is more appropriate in this forum. Don't get paranoid on us.
I have to run to the dentist, my political pals. BBL and will answer you both.
YIF
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:25 am |
|
|
|
| apodixis wrote: | YIF wrote above “2. No entangling foreign alliances as envisioned by Washington and Jefferson may have been possible in the early 1800s, but does not seem pragmatic in the 21st century.”
In WWI 20 million people died because one Serbian aristocrat was shot, and several European countries had entangling alliances that required them to go to war with the countries that the shooters came from. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - in the 21st century.
Dithers wrote above: “Why can't his plea be seen as a voice of reason. Someone who's saying "Let's give Gen. Petraeus a chance."?”
I agree that we should give the Iraq surge a chance for a few months, but only if the administration tells the American people what that “chance” means. A Democrat plan calls for turning over security for Baghdad and the Sunni triangle to the Iraquis within three months. It has some other sensible components that I’ll look up and post.
The Brits have figured this out: They are pulling their troops out of southern Iraq and moving them to Afganistan where the real terrorist threat lies. |
History does repeat itself, but being a world superpower for the last century, it would be rough going without any alliances. Are you suggesting a return to the Monroe Doctrine?
Joe Lieberman is usually a reasonable voice. He may be right, but I also agree with Apo that there need to be some agreements with respect to greater involvement and responsibility by the Iraqis which will be easier said than done IMO.
As for the Brits figuring it out, I just read in one of the UK papers maybe the Telegraph that the Brits too have failed miserably in Basra and totally lost control of the area. I don't think that it was just the Americans who misread the Iraqi situation. Blair is said to have kept them there merely to avoid the embarrassment of admitting his mistake.
Afghanistan should be given more focus but unfortunately the mess that we have created in Iraq is time and manpower consuming. I wish General Petraeus well. I hope that he is successful.
Apo, I too do not want the US to go along with Israeli policy if it should not be in the interest of the US.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:48 am |
|
|
|
“History does repeat itself, but being a world superpower for the last century, it would be rough going without any alliances. Are you suggesting a return to the Monroe Doctrine?”
Of course not. The Monroe Doctrine and its authors, especially John Quincy Adams were the antithesis of the Jeffersonian foreign policy. The doctrine was touted as moral opposition to colonialism but it was subsequently used by President Roosevelt as an excuse for the U.S. to practice its own form of colonialism. “Remember the Maine” was just another " Bay of Tonkin attack" or “Weapons of Mass destruction” scam.
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Iraq is just another example of blowback from U.S. foreign meddling. ( Blowback is an intelligence term for negative consequences for an action )
Here are some others all ostensibly done for idealistic purposes:
Japan was a self isolated feudal state until U.S. Commodore Perry steamed in on a modern warship demanding that Japan open up to the world. Realising how vulnerable they were from this visit, Japan then started its development as a modern military fascist state; And returned Perrys visit at Pearl Harbor.
In the European WWI the various powers had fought each other to a standstill. Then the U.S. Liberal President Wilson with his League of Nations delusions sent in American troops which tipped the military balance. The defeated European powers were then saddled by that League with economic punishments that created the unrest in Germany that brought the Nazis into power, and led to the second world war.
Fast forward to the 21st century. Saddam lobs some ineffectual scud missiles into nuclear armed Israel during the justified war to push Iraq out of Kuwait . Some of the Israeli lobby ask that the U.S. take out Saddam completely in a second war; and to give ( not sell ) poor, defenseless, little Israel billions in weaponry, some of which is then used to indiscriminately kill hundreds of Lebanese civilians. The blowback on the U.S. for doing the foregoing has been discussed in some detail in these forums.
The best U.S. foreign policy is for the U.S. to mind its own business.
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:30 am |
|
|
|
Apodixis:
Some of the Israeli lobby ask that the U.S. take out Saddam completely in a second war;
YIF:
-- and this occurred when and can you give us some backup for this assertion.
While there would be no love lost between Saddam and the Israelis, I do not believe that our Congress was seriously lobbied to take Saddam out in another war.
I certainly agree with you that the US cannot be the watchdog for the world and that we desperately need prioritizing our interests.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:50 am |
|
|
|
To understand what happened read the 2006 Yale University Press book.”AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS -
Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. “ By Francis Fukuyama. He was a Neo-con who has seen the error of that political persuasion.
“I do not believe that our Congress was seriously lobbied to take Saddam out in another war.”
Then why did 3/4 of the Senate vote for the Iraq war authorization ?
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
|
|
| apodixis wrote: | To understand what happened read the 2006 Yale University Press book.”AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS -
Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. “ By Francis Fukuyama. He was a Neo-con who has seen the error of that political persuasion.
“I do not believe that our Congress was seriously lobbied to take Saddam out in another war.”
Then why did 3/4 of the Senate vote for the Iraq war authorization ? |
It was the WMD, Dummy. 
Seriously, I do not believe that it was a lobby for the Israelis that encouraged this debacle. Bush was intent on removing Saddam. He needed a reason, any would have done.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:58 pm |
|
|
|
“Seriously, I do not believe that it was a lobby for the Israelis that encouraged this debacle….”
I don’t rely on belief, but on reason and evidence, and 40 years of political experience.
Here is an internet link reference to get you started understanding: "The Israel Lobby" by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:25 pm |
|
|
|
Excerpts from the link above to “The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
“Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical… The war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002.
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam.
At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan. scholars like Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, through neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable.”
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:01 pm |
|
|
|
One of the reasons many Americans are not aware of the above is explained in this excerpt from the link above to “The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt :
“No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism.”
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3202
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
