|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2001 : 01:52:27 [Permalink]
|
Want to read a LOL, ROTFLMAO book concerning the Gulf War? Try P.J. O'Roarke's "Give War A Chance". What happens when you send a Rolling Stone reporter to cover a war? In many cases, someone screwed up and he was given access. He slams the US gov't, our allies, the press, and the enemy. The only people he gives any slack to are the folks actually in harms way. A cynical and funny look at why we get into these things in the first place, and a worthy read.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 01:59:44 [Permalink]
|
Hmm, hafta pick that up Lisa, right after I get my hands on Shermers, The Borderlands of Science...
Rolling Stone is a semi-legit entertainment rag, he's a reporter...I see...LOL!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 03:05:59 [Permalink]
|
PJ says the sign on his door says "Foreign Affairs Correspondent" because that sounds better than "Middle Aged Drunk".
Just get the book, grab a beer, and be prepared to laugh. Like I said, the only people he spares are the actual grunts in the trenches, who actually had to fire the bullets, or push the buttons to send off the missiles. To him, everyone else was fair game.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 03:43:41 [Permalink]
|
I did. I said he's a real Sherlock, didn't I? A funny guy, too.
quote:
Okay, your comment has been noted. Now please address Slater's comments.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 06:00:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mmmm maybe he is...but
He calls himself Gorgo which is the name of a Hammer film from the 50s. A rip off of Godzilla attacks England.
He says his name is Duane McCormick which is also the name of an "American" character on a Thames TV soap.
He talks about "the UK" which is something I have never heard an American do.
And he gets his Email, not from a standard supplier, but some place that claims to be a Toy & Novelty company...only they are not accesible.
Whole thing sounds pretty phoney to me.
This is Slaters post in regards to your actual location and the fact that you may not be who you claim to be. Most US citizens refer to the UK as England. So please explain this...
quote:
Believe me, I have been told that for years by people who agree with me. Genocide is not my term, but a term used by Denis Halliday, former Asst U.N. Sec'y General, and former U.S. Atty General Ramsey Clark. It's a legal term, and is in no way a silly exaggeration.
This is the quote I was referring to when I asked what you do that you would know people in high places. Apparently I misinterpreted the statement or misread it. Mea culpa.
As regards to an earlier post regarding the inflamatory beginings to this thread. Please, I merely pointed the 'gentleman' to the UN website.
As regards to Gorgo declaring the UN website irrelevent. Is that because it does not support your claims. You claim that the UN imposed smart sanctions, however the UN website states that their actions are temporary solutions to the problems facing the Iraqi people.
Do you want to see the subjugation of the Afghani people continue? The UN has imposed sanctions against the Taliban while allowing relief efforts to continue. However, the Taliban has affected a complete slap in the face to these relief workers, threatening them with stoning by the religious police if they violate any of the restrictive rules of the Taliban. You wish to see the UN pull out and allow the continued subjugation and dehumanization that is in practice there today?
You are not looking at anything beyond your view of how the UN should lift sanctions against Saddam. Well if that is the case, then should not the UN also lift all other sanctions against countries that perpetrate their despotic rule against their people. So let the Taliban order the beating of any woman who fails to wear the burqa and have a man with her on the streets. Let her die from inadequate medical attention because she can not see a doctor without her husband. Let her be beaten to death by her husband because she can't go shopping for dinner because she doesn't have the burqa her sister is using that day. These are the things you are proposing by insisting UN sanctions are irrelevent. If they are irrelevent in one case then they must be irrelevent in all cases.
BTW, genocide is too strong a term...perhaps a better term for use would be subjugation. IMHO, neither the UN nor the allied forces have any desire to see every last Iraqi wiped from the planet. That would be genocide.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 06:21:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is Slaters post in regards to your actual location and the fact that you may not be who you claim to be. Most US citizens refer to the UK as England. So please explain this...
Is this a UFO society, or a skeptic's forum? I'm in the phone book dear, if you're so paranoid, look me up. Do a search on the web. You'll find me all over the place.
quote:
As regards to Gorgo declaring the UN website irrelevent. Is that because it does not support your claims. You claim that the UN imposed smart sanctions, however the UN website states that their actions are temporary solutions to the problems facing the Iraqi people.
It is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with anything. Iraq did not "kick out" the inspectors. It's been admitted by Butler himself. Next problem.
quote:
Do you want to see the subjugation of the Afghani people continue? The UN has imposed sanctions against the Taliban while allowing relief efforts to continue. However, the Taliban has affected a complete slap in the face to these relief workers, threatening them with stoning by the religious police if they violate any of the restrictive rules of the Taliban. You wish to see the UN pull out and allow the continued subjugation and dehumanization that is in practice there today?
Don't see how that's relevant.
You are not looking at anything beyond your view of how the UN should lift sanctions against Saddam. Well if that is the case, then should not the UN also lift all other sanctions against countries that perpetrate their despotic rule against their people. So let the Taliban order the beating of any woman who fails to wear the burqa and have a man with her on the streets. Let her die from inadequate medical attention because she can not see a doctor without her husband. Let her be beaten to death by her husband because she can't go shopping for dinner because she doesn't have the burqa her sister is using that day. These are the things you are proposing by insisting UN sanctions are irrelevent. If they are irrelevent in one case then they must be irrelevent in all cases.
You have no idea what you're talking about. It would take a year to explain this to you in a way that you'd understand. If you want to talk about it, do some research.
Also, I appreciate your help in figuring out this system. You might want to check out the spell-check feature.
quote:
BTW, genocide is too strong a term...perhaps a better term for use would be subjugation. IMHO, neither the UN nor the allied forces have any desire to see every last Iraqi wiped from the planet. That would be genocide.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
[/quote]
That's not for you to say. Genocide is a legal term, and it fits very well.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 08:21:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Soooo Slater, what are you saying? Is it possible this guy is merely a "Piper" or "Conspiracy Dave clone"? You know the type: post what is calculated to make forum regulars go up in flames.
Ah, FYI in "Internet vernacular" this is referred to as a "troll". And after reading back over all the posts, you may be on to something.
It gets to the point where you have to decide if the suspected "troll" really wants to have a coherent and possibly productive discussion, or just wants to rant and rave and call every point of view other than their own invalid before examining it. If the latter is determined, it is usually recommended that you DNFTT. (Do Not Feed The Trolls). 
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 08:43:24 [Permalink]
|
Don't call Trish a troll. She's caught up in some mental trap or other, but I think she's trying.
quote:
Ah, FYI in "Internet vernacular" this is referred to as a "troll". And after reading back over all the posts, you may be on to something.
It gets to the point where you have to decide if the suspected "troll" really wants to have a coherent and possibly productive discussion, or just wants to rant and rave and call every point of view other than their own invalid before examining it. If the latter is determined, it is usually recommended that you DNFTT. (Do Not Feed The Trolls).
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 09:02:18 [Permalink]
|
Look, I said early on that I'm not going to get a doctorate and supplies pictures with circles and arrows to get you to understand what I'm talking about. Trish isn't even paying attention to what I'm saying. She's just blabbering on about things that have nothing to do with anything. She needs to start smoking more, not less. I'm trying to be polite, but a lot of the rest of you are just plain angry people. You're defensive, and I haven't said anything against any of you. Those of you that have been insulted are insulted by some irrational fear that questioning our leaders will bring civilization to an end. How can you call yourselves skeptics? Disagree, yes, but let's have a little discipline about it.
quote:
Don't call Trish a troll. She's caught up in some mental trap or other, but I think she's trying.
[quote]
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 10:07:52 [Permalink]
|
Well, it's been a while since I've posted, but I'm feeling the urge now since this gets a bit more into my arena, though I won't pretend to be an expert (I seem to be an expert at very little compared to many of the regulars here). Besides, my point of view is almost always presented and defended by someone on this board as well or better than I could do it myself (bow to Slater, as most of us seem to do). So sue me for being a lurker.
I don't know how many posts I'll make because, like Slater has indicated for himself, my time is limited, but this first one will be mostly general and without regard to specific allegations--for the most part. Subsequent posts will be more specific--for the most part.
So get ready for the Garrette stream of consciousness thing and toss your nickels in the hat on your way out:
There have been quite a few references to military and political history and practice tossed about, most of it wrong, some of it only slightly so, others egregiously so. Trish was gracious enough to make a correction regarding one of her assertions. Someone else, I believe it was bestonnet (SP?) claimed that Iraq would not even be armed except the U.S. had been supplying it with all that equipment for years so we went in fighting against our own stuff. Not so. Iraq had been almost totally Soviet supplied for a few decades and still gets what parts it gets through a pipeline (figuratively speaking) stretching back to Republics from the old USSR. The destroyed equipment on the ground consisted of Soviet T-72's, T-62's, the odd T-80, some ZSU's, BMP's, BTMR's, etc., etc.; all Soviet. The SCUD rocket launchers that made so much news? Strictly Soviet. Same for the planes.
Iran, on the other hand has lots of U.S. stuff, though most of it is poorly maintained now since we stopped supplying them parts and training. Remember the Shah? He was our best regional ally and bought lots of war toys from us at good prices.
Split the rest of the Middle East this way:
1. U.S./UK/French supplied: Israel
2. Soviet/Russian/Chinese/Czech/French supplied: Everyone else
All of which is not necessarily germaine to the argument regarding the humanity or inhumanity of the sanctions, but the assertions have been thrown about as if they ARE germaine. Please make them correct.
On the historical side, there have been references to Manifest Destiny as if it were an actual document and doctrine. Not so. Manifest Destiny was simply a belief in the early and middle 1800's that the white settlers of North America had a divine right to the conquest of all the land stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and those who stood in the way of the settlement were standing in the way of righteousness. Manifest Destiny had nothing to do with anything beyond the shores of what is now the continental U.S.
The Monroe Doctrine, on the other hand, was President Monroe's 'double-dast-dare-ya' to Europe saying that the Western Hemisphere was ours and any meddling in any of the Americas by any European power would be considered meddling in the affairs of the U.S. and an act against the interests of the U.S. It has been slowly expanded into a recognition that U.S. interests have become worldwide and include such diverse topics as oil, commerce routes, commercial markets, a limited support of human rights, political alliances, military bases, etc. etc. etc. (This became the Truman Doctrine which is what led to our involvement in Vietnam).
Now we have the Clinton Doctrine which says not only do we expect others to stay out of our backyard, but we will actively play in theirs. The destructive (read 'impractical' and 'unrealistic') aspect of the Clinton Doctrine as Clinton implemented it is that it basically avoided involvement if we had an abiding strategic interest and got us involved only if we could say we had no interest other than humanitarian. Noble. Doomed.
Were we morally outraged that Iraq invaded Kuwait? You betcha. Would we have gone over in such force to kick them out if moral outrage were the only factor? I sincerely doubt it, and this does not make me nor the U.S. 'evil.' It merely makes us as pragmatic as every other nation is; the difference is in methodology. Were the other Arab states morally outraged that Iraq invaded Kuwait? Hardly. They were scared ****less. Modern Arab history is underscored by a desire for hegemony, for a pre-eminent leader and hero who will forge them into a world power, but the desire is tempered by a fear that it will actually happen, because, like so many others who happen to be human, they want their dictator, but only if he's THEIR dictator.
So we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait partly because it was the right thing to do and mostly because we needed:
1. To protect our oil supply
2. To prevent one regional superpower from dominating the Middle East
3. To make friends with as many of the other nations there and THEY ASKED US TO
Does this bother me? It bothers me a little that humanity demands this, but it does not bother me that we recognize it and act accordingly. It's the way the world works and it's the way I expect and demand my government to work. I insist on a respect for human rights, but it is not absolute nor is it the sole factor. Any attempt to base all our political and military decisions solely on humanitarian considerations is ultimately self-defeating. Call me a cynic.
And to keep with this stream-of-consciousness thing, the fighting in the Middle East is only secondarily religious. It is primarily territorial with religion thrown in to make it nasty. Israel was non-existent for over two millenia. It has existed in its present form for less than 60 years.
How did modern Israel come about? The U.S. & European powers, freshly victorious from WWII, drew some fairly arbitary lines on a map and carved it out of Palestine. They did this to give the Jews a home, so in that way it's religious. But from the Arab/Palestinian point of view, the religion was secondary; some far away countries had suddenly kicked them out of their homes and plopped some foreigners (who happened to practice a related but separate religion) smack dab on top of most of the holiest sites in the Middle East, and they weren't even consulted about it first.
If you're from the U.S., imagine China carving out a 100 mile stretch of land 20 miles deep from the Atlantic Coast (make sure it includes New York and D.C.), plopping down 50,000 followers of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (and heavily arming them), and then telling you to 'get along peacably.' (If you're from Texas, imagine any stretch of coastline, but throw in the Alamo; Slater, maybe you can picture the coastline around Dublin but somehow include the Cliffs of Moher, the Rock of Cashel, Blarney Castle, and the site of Brian Boru's last battle and death).
And just to clear it up, in case anyone is wondering which side of this debate I'm coming down on: Gorgo, if you honestly believe Hussein has been acting as a benevolent ruler all this time, then you've been deceiving yourself. His invasion of Kuwait (yes, it was an invasion, and yes, it was 'his', regardless if the U.S. set it up, because he can make his own decisions and the U.S. is not capable of being that Byzantine anyway) was a power grab. Pure and simple, unadulterated--a power grab. His treatment of the Kurds and his own populace is cruel, capricious, and oppressive. He has made in the past and continues to attempt to make WMD's AND their delivery systems which is the bigger concern.
If your contention, Gorgo, is that the U.S. has played politics in its treatment of Iraq and in its support of the sanctions, I'll agree. Not a blessed thing that happens b |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 10:25:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Call me a cynic.
You're a cynic!!!
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." -Master Yoda |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 11:33:03 [Permalink]
|
Well, I agree with most of this. The U.S. was never really all that thrilled with the Ba'ath Party. My memory is not so good on this point, but they helped to overthrow the more popular predecessor, as I recall. Also, the U.S. supported Iraq, Iran and the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war. I think Kissinger made some remark about hoping that they all killed themselves. That's not to say we didn't do some cozying, but that was for political reasons, as was said.
I don't know why people think because I criticize the U.S. position that they think I think Saddam is some sweet guy. All in all, as things go in "third world" countries, there a lots of worse places to be than pre-Gulf war Iraq. Medicine is almost free, everyone is educated. No abject poverty. Saddam Hussein is one mean sumbitch. I don't want to be around him. However, I don't want to be in a lot of places where the U.S./U.K. and Arab and Israeli gangsters have been playing. I think we'd want our leader to be a brutal sumbitch too. I'm not excusing him, but I'm not excusing the Bush/Clinton regimes either.
Another point. You said that the sanctions would be lifted if Iraq cooperates. There is no evidence of that. In fact, U.S. administration officials have said that the sanctions will exist as long as Saddam exists. There were no weapons of mass destruction when the spies were discovered and Clinton decided on false evidence of non-cooperation to bomb the **** out of the people of Iraq. The Iraqis cooperated and found there was no hope of lifting the sanctions due to their cooperation.
quote:
Well, it's been a while since I've posted,
My kids still love me.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 11:38:51 [Permalink]
|
All,
Saddam was tolerated by the US and supplied by the Soviets in order to be a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalist revolution that was fomenting in the 70's and came to fruition in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.
The US tolerated Saddam due to our oil interests in the region as well as the fear of our allies.
The Soviets were much more proactive because,
1. The Middle East is in their backyard.
2. Tens of millions of Muslims lived within their borders.
The two major military powers in the region (Iraq and Iran) fought a war over control of the region. Iraq won the war, fundamentalist revolution was in check, Saddam became irrelevant. It appears that Mr. Houssein believed that he was still important enough in the region that he could annex territory without reprisals. it is my understanding that US intelligence knew of the possibility of Iraqi expansion before it happened but that the US gvernment, for some reason did nothing. Saddam Houssein likely saw this as approval and made his move.
Now in 2001 we are in an intractable situation. There appears to be no way that all parties involved can maintain credibility. Someone needs to lose and the citizens of Iraq are the ones who are suffering for the stupidity of their leader.
It is interesting to note that with a weak Saddam Houssein, Islamic fundamentalism is again becomming a powerful force in the region. Not necessarily "post hoc ergo propter hoc" though.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 11:40:21 [Permalink]
|
I have been a little unfair to Trish, so I'll answer one of her questions. The sanctions on Iraq are really unlike any other such situation in history.
You had 40 plus days of bombing, much of which was intended to hurt the civilian population. Their infrastructure was destroyed, and due to the nature of the sanctions, there was no way for all these years to repair a lot of it. That means a lot of problems like finding clean water. There are a list of other things that are criminal about the sanctions and the twice or thrice weekly bombings which I won't go into.
quote:
Don't call Trish a troll. She's caught up in some mental trap or other, but I think she's trying.
quote:
Ah, FYI in "Internet vernacular" this is referred to as a "troll". And after reading back over all the posts, you may be on to something.
It gets to the point where you have to decide if the suspected "troll" really wants to have a coherent and possibly productive discussion, or just wants to rant and rave and call every point of view other than their own invalid before examining it. If the latter is determined, it is usually recommended that you DNFTT. (Do Not Feed The Trolls).
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 13:30:00 [Permalink]
|
Okay, like other newbies to this, I'm still learning the mechanics. If someone can refer me to where there are instructions on quoting previous posts, I'd be most appreciative (which means very little since I'm not sending you money, but I'll smile nicely once).
Greg, I'm in near complete agreement; you said it well. I say 'near' instead of 'total' agreement just because I am, in the end, a hardcase and hate giving total anything to anybody, but I can't nitpick this one and certainly can't improve on it.
QUOTE (Gorgo):
You had 40 plus days of bombing, much of which was intended to hurt the civilian population. Their infrastructure was destroyed, and due to the nature of the sanctions, there was no way for all these years to repair a lot of it. That means a lot of problems like finding clean water. There are a list of other things that are criminal about the sanctions and the twice or thrice weekly bombings which I won't go into
END QUOTE
Weeeeellllll........No.
The bombings were most certainly not INTENDED to hurt the civilian population. Did we know it would? Of course. Those things that tend to diminish the enemy's ability to wage war usually also diminish the civilian population's ability to support itself. A road is a road is a road supports a tank supports a bicycle supports a Citroen supports a pedestrian pushing a baby carriage. And news coverage to the contrary, 'smart' bombs are the exception and precision is a luxury. Fighter plane factory in the middle of downtown? Blow up downtown because the factory's too hard or impossible to blow up all by itself.
Now you can argue against this if you argue against war as a whole, which is a separate argument for a different thread. But given that there is a war, it is impossible to wage it without harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure even though that is not the intent.
But your point is that the sanctions removed the means to repair that damage, yes? Let's see: Did Hussein find it impossible to repair barracks and airfields? No. Did he find it impossible to rebuild a large portion of his army and feed them well? No. Do the sanctions prevent the building/rebuilding of hospitals or the training/importation of trained personnel to staff them? No.
There are NGO's (Non-governmental Organizations; e.g., the Red Cross/Crescent) who are allowed, even under the sanctions, to provide humanitarian assistance to the populace including the rebuilding of the infrastructure, including water collection, purification and distribution. Why aren't they there? Hussein won't let them.
Actually, after reading your last post, I understand your position much more clearly and I don't think we're as far apart as I originally assumed except on some of the particulars. (I'll get to a couple of those).
But basically, tell me if I'm wrong, we agree that either side could get the sanctions lifted. The U.S. could do it by exerting pressure on the U.N. Iraq could do it by complying with the mandates (my position) or removing Hussein (your position).
Let's look at why neither side is doing it (aside from the other political agendas that are always hidden and pursued in arrangements like this, which I think we can agree are there for both sides):
The U.S. won't back down because:
1. It will lose face and therefore influence
2. It will not (the U.S. believes) serve the
people of Iraq the best in the long run
Hussein won't back down because:
1. He will lose face and therefore influence
Am I missing anything on the tally sheets?
As an aside, you're right that the U.S. backed Iran, Iraq and the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war (which most people forget lasted 10 bloody bloody years). It started soon after the Shah was ousted in Iran and the U.S. was casting about for an ally but unsure of its footing because of inept dealings with Iraq and others in the past (we're good at inept dealings; just check our record in Central America). So we tentatively tried Iraq but they were already buddy buddy with the Soviets (height of the cold war and all that with the Patriot Missiles only recently deployed in West Germany) and didn't really need us. Tried the Kurds because maybe Hussein wasn't all that politically stable but the Kurds had no power base with Turkey and the Soviets at their back. Tried wooing Iran all over again because, hey, at least it would mean we have a toehold SOMEWHERE but they were still in their religious fervor. So we were left bouncing about hoping to be asked to the prom, or--failing that--hoping each side knocked the other out, but not TOO bad, please because then there's no one government to turn to and that's a freaking nightmare so if we have to end up with a dictator let's at least hope there's only one and he's got oil and he oppresses his people quietly but for god's sake don't let him have a line to Moscow.
Now let me admit that I haven't followed anything in that area for the past few months and so I know nothing about the 'twice or thrice weekly' bombings. I'll trust you on it.
Can't remember when last you mentioned it, but I have to differ with your take on Butler's reason for departing and his comments on it. Disgust at the political maneuvering of the U.N. was part of it, but I don't recall a denial of findings. He was, in fact, upset at the stonewalling he continually ran into in Baghdad. His contempt for the U.N. was not that they were 'spying' (want me to admit that? I admit it; we'd be idiots not to do it; every blasted nation in the history of the planet has spied; the successful nations have spied successfully; Hussein did it and does it; we won the Revolutionary War not because Washington was a great strategist--he was a bit above average--but because he was perhaps our finest spymaster ever, and a helluva leader; done pontificating) but that they were not trying to get him past Hussein's stonewalling on the ground but to get themselves to look good in the paper. And his teams did find indications of WMD's and indications that they'd been moved and moved again during the stonewalling.
It's been many years and I'd have to dig up sources, but if you insist, I'll try. Could take a bit, though.
In any case, still fun talking.
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 06/13/2001 13:31:55 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
