BeTe Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 @Radagast 1. Looking at your messages: First you wrote: Quote Else war was only truly defensive, i.e. when standing with your back against a corner. That is not the case with Russia. They are nuclear. Nothing threatens them apart from internal ... Then: Quote So if the tide turns against Ukraine, then the West has no other way than to go to war. At least some nations like Poland, likely Germany. Mostly the non-nuclear countries. Am I the only who see discrepancy here? If some asks me to show how I understand Western narrative, I'd show him this messages. 2. Regarding this: Quote We host some refugees at our farm. I meet Ukrainians daily. In contrast to Georgians they are really depressed. And they have all hope in their army winning. Do you know which country accepted the biggest number of refugees? It's their aggressor - Russia https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine What you think about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeTe Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 @a 0ad player Wow, thanks. This was serious elaboration, sorry that I took your time. Honorable ideas, hard to implement I guess. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted January 16 Author Report Share Posted January 16 (edited) I think I'd rather have Mr. Magoo as chancellor than Hr. Scholz. Edited January 16 by Gurken Khan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 That is why Vermin Supreme is the answer to all of the world's problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 On 13/01/2023 at 6:32 PM, BeTe said: Do you know which country accepted the biggest number of refugees? It's their aggressor - Russia https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine If they count the population of the annexed regions, indeed that's a lot of Ukrainians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guerringuerrin Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 My English is not good enough to write my argument, so I have used an online translator. I apologize if any sentence doesn't make sense. This is machine translation. As a South American I find it very interesting to read a debate on the conflict between Russia, Ukraine and the West, considering that most of you are European or American, because until now I have only been able to listen to the opinions of my friends, who are as South American as I. Probably for historical reasons, many of us, inhabitants of the so-called third world, find it very difficult to believe in the western mystique of freedom of expression, civil liberties, lasting peace, due to the fact that most of the internal conflicts that we have had they have been promoted, financed and supported by our dear friend Uncle Sam and have brought misery, death, poverty, dispossession of our natural resources, of our wealth; it has created an extreme dependency and above all it has undermined our sovereignty and our progress as a society. I do not want to say with this that our political and business class has not had anything to do with this. Nor that all the bad things that have happened to us have been the fault of the leading Western countries. But these leading countries have been largely responsible for this. As has been Europe in Africa and the Middle East (suffice it to mention that France has just withdrawn its military forces from Mali). Is it fair, after the atrocities committed by the French army, to blame Mali for wanting to strengthen ties with Russia to guarantee its internal security? As was England in India, in the days of the British Raj. And I could go on for a long time giving examples in this regard. My point is that perhaps it is for these reasons that many "third worlders" do not want to accept the hegemonic discourse in the West that "Russia wants to conquer all of Europe and that Ukraine is just the beginning of the new Russian empire." Western promises of progress, peace, freedom, independence, and democracy have been broken many times by those same Western powers that, they say today, are defending "the good side of the world." The double standard of the Western powers is truly grotesque. While condemning the lack of freedoms in Iran, but allowing Israeli apartheid in Jordan and the colonization of territories beyond the UN resolutions of the '60s; while condemning the Cuban dictatorship and blockading its economy for 60 years (an insignificant island that does not represent any danger to the US), but looking the other way when the Saudi monarchy not only restricts freedoms but carries out a totally unequal war against Yemen. And now, that there is a possibility of facing an oil supply problem, the US is preparing to ignore Juan Guaidó and reestablish relations with "the Chavista dictatorship of Venezuela." I think this Western double standard has gone too far and has generated a general mistrust among many people about the integrity of the "struggle for democracy" that the West is waging. And many of us tend to think that it is nothing more than an excuse to fulfill a geopolitical agenda of global power and domination. Something that I always ask myself with these things is: who benefits from all this? Wasn't it better for Europe to continue buying cheap gas from Russia than buying expensive gas from the US? There are no conflicts in Germany right now because they are going back to using coal as a raw material? Isn't it surprising that, after the Russian-Ukrainian war, someone blew up the Nord Stream 2? Who benefited from its destruction? Who benefits from high energy costs? Europe? Asia? Questions that, of course, I could not answer. Finally, I would like to share this link with a very interesting debate between John Mearsheimer (renowned geopolitician from the school of realism, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, from the Conservative Party, member of the Council International Institute for Strategic Studies, an international relations think tank):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aNMOEQ0248 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, guerringuerrin said: Who benefits from high energy costs? Europe? Asia? definitely everyone that sells gas and oil, kinda sucks for everyone that uses it and buys it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: definitely everyone that sells gas and oil And everyone that sells arms profits from the current situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeTe Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 (edited) @guerringuerrin I share same perspective as citizen of Eastern Europe. I can sign every word. @BreakfastBurrito_007 @Gurken Khan You are both right, but in same time I think this game is much bigger than few billions of profit from oil/arms. We need holistic approach... Not sure if I have capacity to do it , but I can try at least. So, 1. Russia's economy suffer, gas price increase can't fit warfare loses. And they will most likely switch from North Stream to China pipelines which mean much lower price. 2. West could suffer even more economy wise. Info that I have say that people in West already can feel that especially from lower and mid class. But this war is beyond such economy/finance goals, I am 100% sure. Few perspectives: - geopolitical: someone say it's geopolitical action from U.S. to separate Russia and Germany/EU that started to make tight connections, whose symbol is North Stream. Could be way to weaken Russia. Someone also says that this is prepare for war against China which is bigger treat to NATO hegemony. - economy/finance perspective says that this is way to hide real inflation cause and blame Russia (after Covid) for that. They say that inflation is caused by printing money and giving that money to banks and big corporations, but increased costs will be paid by low/mid class via higher prices and losing jobs. - war strategic perspective says that West/NATO tried to install anti missile system in satelite countries in Eastern Europe. This would neutralize Russia's tactical nuclear weapons, which at the end make Russia very vulnerable and basically unprotected. - biotechnology perspective says that there were many bio weapon laboratories in Ukraine. Tbh, I didn't read much about that. However, it will be interesting in next couple of years or decades. I am wondering how all that will develop. Hard time for us regular people for sure, but could be fun as well if we don't worry too much. Edited January 21 by BeTe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 (edited) 16 hours ago, guerringuerrin said: "Russia wants to conquer all of Europe and that Ukraine is just the beginning of the new Russian empire." What do you think of the discourse of the Russian government saying that they are fighting Satanism ? What do you think of the Budapest Memorandum ? Who is responsible for the shot on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) ? What do you think of the general policy in Russia against homosexuals and against people from political opposition ? 16 hours ago, guerringuerrin said: The double standard of the Western powers is truly grotesque. I agree, but it doesn't mean I would support an authoritarian government attacking an innocent country that have little weight in world decisions. This is really something I hate from ideological people, they are ready to sacrifice innocents to fight against what they define as the evil. How many times I have heard governments in Latin America excusing their oppression in the sake of fighting against imperialism. I really think most people following the Left are naive and unintelligent puppets. I understand you don't like the US but Ukraine has nothing to do with it by itself. This is a country with its own people, its own history. They didn't have much weight in world decisions in the past, they don't have much weight in world decisions right now. Why should we ignore their persecution because you don't like the West? Edited January 21 by Genava55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 (edited) 16 hours ago, guerringuerrin said: Something that I always ask myself with these things is: who benefits from all this? Most conspiracists think like that too. Pearl Harbor, 11th September 2001, etc. How many times I have heard people saying that 11th September attack was ordered by the CIA/FBI because it served the interest of the US... In real history, taking opportunity of bad events is quite common. You don't need to provoke yourself a bad event to take advantage of it. Edited January 21 by Genava55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 49 minutes ago, BeTe said: war strategic perspective says that West/NATO tried to install anti missile system in satelite countries in Eastern Europe. This would neutralize Russia's tactical nuclear weapons, which at the end make Russia very vulnerable and basically unprotected. Then why would Russia invade Ukraine which didn’t have any of these weapons. 50 minutes ago, BeTe said: biotechnology perspective says that there were many bio weapon laboratories in Ukraine. Tbh, I didn't read much about that This seems to be a fantasy to be honest. also for the argument of tactical nuclear weapons being neutralized by nato air defense systems. That doesn’t mean anything because once they have send tactical nukes to nato there will be ICBMs anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 6 minutes ago, Genava55 said: What do you think of the general policy in Russia against homosexuals and against people from political opposition ? I don't think the situation for homosexuals is as bad in the Ukraine as in Russia. But the general policy against people from the opposition in the Ukraine is very bad; nothing like the heroes of freedom & democracy as our propaganda paints them. 10 minutes ago, Genava55 said: I agree, but it doesn't mean I would support an authoritarian government attacking an innocent country that have little weight in world decisions. I am not supporting Russia, but the Ukraine is anything but innocent. And what weight they had in world decisions they sold. 14 minutes ago, Genava55 said: This is really something I hate from ideological people, they are ready to sacrifice innocents to fight against what they define as the evil. I agree. Although my examples would differ greatly from yours. 55 minutes ago, BeTe said: West/NATO tried to install anti missile system in satelite countries in Eastern Europe AFAIK those "anti missile systems" have considerably offensive capabilities, including tactical nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 55 minutes ago, BeTe said: - biotechnology perspective says that there were many bio weapon laboratories in Ukraine. Tbh, I didn't read much about that. What the next step of your weirdo theory? Saying that COVID has been manufactured in laboratories in China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said: I am not supporting Russia, but the Ukraine is anything but innocent. And what weight they had in world decisions they sold. Their weight in world decisions was: the military industrial complex they inherited from USSR, and the oil and gas reserves found in their country. they sold the m.I.c because they can’t afford it and need the money badly. they got attacked by Russia to stop Europe from getting an alternative to Russian gas. so you are saying they deserve to be invaded because of this? 7 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said: AFAIK those "anti missile systems" have considerably offensive capabilities, including tactical nukes no because their targeting systems and warheads are not quickly replaceable as they are kept in sealed canisters for protection against corrosion. Many of these don’t even have a warhead anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 8 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: so you are saying they deserve to be invaded because of this? It's a consequence of their actions. They went for maximum confrontation with Russia in exchange for EU/NATO monies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said: It's a consequence of their actions. They went for maximum confrontation with Russia in exchange for EU/NATO monies. Well their people voted to distance themselves from Russia after ousting the Ukrainian equivalent of lukashenko. And is it not reasonable to aspire for prosperity and security in nato/eu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 5 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said: But the general policy against people from the opposition in the Ukraine is very bad Only since the invasion in February 2022. Before that the opposition was still strong in Ukraine. The regions held by the separatists and Russia cut a large reservoir of votes for the opposition but still they managed to make more than 16% in 2019. The second party was a party of opposition. Zelensky's party won with 43% but the second party was Opposition Platform — For Life with 13%, an opposition party. The nationalist party did only 8%. In comparison, 2018 election in Russia have shown that Putin alone made 77.53% and that the two others weren't really opposing any of Putin's policies. Most of the policies against opposition in Ukraine have been implemented with the war. Zelensky tried to make compromises in 2019 with Russia, even agreeing for Donbass autonomy: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/why-ukraine-russia-can-t-agree-autonomy-donbas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeTe Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 (edited) @BreakfastBurrito_007 Quote This seems to be a fantasy to be honest. What, bio weapons? Idk if they exist in Ukraine, but they do exist around the world more then we hear about it. "Gain of function" of viruses is not secret. I don't believe that bad people around the world will not use that in some moment, same as atomic bomb by US against Japan. By the way to reply to @Genava55 : yes for me, Corona virus that caused Covid is mutated version of old coronavirus versions, I don't believe it's 100% natural. I don't know if that's intentionally left from labs nor if that's from Wuhan or somewhere else. I believe we can't actually know real truth. But if you ask me, I'd stop "gain of function" researches. For me we failed a lot as civilization b/c "they" imprisoned us for 2-3 yeas, and we don't require closing this labs or at least to keep them under rigidly controlled facilities. And that we don't request for much more more serious international organization to investigate Covid drama. They switched our focus to Ukraine very easily... Quote also for the argument of tactical nuclear weapons being neutralized by nato air defense systems. That doesn’t mean anything because once they have send tactical nukes to nato there will be ICBMs anyway. If I understood correctly, it means everything, b/c NATO could intercept these if they put defenses close enough. I guess it's before missile get into orbit or speed up or whatever. If someone has more knowledge about these weapons, he can share here. I don't know if all I wrote is true, just wanted to share perspectives I heard of. I accept you blame me for biased approach, but note that I wanted to say something else. My core message is that "such big event can't be read only in economical/financial key by claiming who earned more". Story is more complex than we can catch. Edited January 21 by BeTe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeTe Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 23 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: Well their people voted to distance themselves from Russia after ousting the Ukrainian equivalent of lukashenko. And is it not reasonable to aspire for prosperity and security in nato/eu? I am not sure whether you are located in Eastern Europe somewhere, but elections in our countries is comedy. There is no democracy, fair elections etc. It's utopia. Tbh, I don't believe in West is much different. It is different but in essence... we are all very far from real/ideal democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted January 21 Author Report Share Posted January 21 44 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: Well their people voted to distance themselves from Russia after ousting the Ukrainian equivalent of lukashenko. I've read he actually ran on a peace platform; then the people did not get what they voted for. And it was a coup. And when "distancing from sth" takes the form of burning dozens of people alive or killing civilians for eight years, I don't think it falls under sth we should accept as a democratic decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 53 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said: And it was a coup. A coup d'état is an illegal seizure of power. 328 of the 447 deputies voted for Yanukovich being removed, he lost all his support even in his own party (he had 195 elected deputies just in his party + 25 communist deputies). Notably because of rumors about him having pre-recorded a resignation statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 3 hours ago, BeTe said: NATO could intercept these if they put defenses close enough. I guess it's before missile get into orbit or speed up or whatever. If someone has more knowledge about these weapons, he can share here. That is called boost phase and the US does not have the capability to stop missiles in boost phase, if they did the Russians could just move the missiles further inside their territory. If nato could intercept them, they would still retaliate since they were attacked, this would likely result in nuclear escalation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeTe Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 7 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: That is called boost phase and the US does not have the capability to stop missiles in boost phase, if they did the Russians could just move the missiles further inside their territory. If nato could intercept them, they would still retaliate since they were attacked, this would likely result in nuclear escalation. Then I'd ask why they don't move missiles inside territory on more safe place immediately? afaik b/c times are important. Point is that we're talking about tactical nuclear weapons, not atom bombs like one that US threw on Japan. These are smaller power projectiles... and I guess they exist in bigger numbers, etc. Off course, I think world should stop making these weapons. And I hope they will be smart enough to prevent escalation as it's still too much devastating and as usually most of victims in wars are the most innocent people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guerringuerrin Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: What do you think of the discourse of the Russian government saying that they are fighting Satanism ? I've never heard anything like that and if what you say is correct I consider it nonsense. The only thing I have read about it (besides the Russian thesis of preventive war to prevent the expansion of NATO) is the fight against the neo-Nazi sectors that are supported by the Zelensky government. Of which what stands out most is the famous Azov battalion. We could also mention the decoration as Hero of Ukraine of Stepan Bandera, leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. An extreme right-wing organization that collaborated with Nazi Germany in the framework of the war against the Soviet Union. Then Germany either betrays him and is imprisoned. It is a long story and with nuances that would make this answer very long. But suffice it to say that his appointment as Hero of Ukraine was repudiated by Poland, Russia and the European Parliament. And the existence of neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine is true. But it is not something only from Ukraine. It is a trend that is increasingly seen in Europe but also here. And I think it's something that should concern us all equally regardless of whether they're Eastern or Western. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: What do you think of the Budapest Memorandum ? As far as I know it was an agreement between the US and Russia to respect the borders of Ukraine and Belarus in exchange for them surrendering their nuclear arsenal. I do not know the details about it so I do not have a very formed opinion either. It is clear that Russia has violated the agreement. But I thought that here we were discussing the geopolitical disputes of the great world powers, not a bureaucratic agreement. Or we can start listing the written agreements that are not respected so much by the US, by Russia, China, England or any power you want to mention and this would become endless. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: Who is responsible for the shot on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) ? I don't know who shot down the Malaysia Airlines plane. I didn't see the evidence, only the cross-accusations. It is important to mention that Russia was not allowed access to the evidence or participate in the investigation as has happened with Nord Stream II. Something that for me is curious. But of course it is not uncommon for Western powers for that to happen. Because Russia is the bad boy and we are the good guys. I'm not trying here to say that Russia is inocent and someone else hit the plane. I simply can't tell. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: What do you think of the general policy in Russia against homosexuals and against people from political opposition ? I think it's very wrong. I would probably suffer imprisonment and persecution for my political views. I want to take advantage of this question you've asked me to clarify to you that I didn't come here to support Russia. Nor am I against democracy, or the free market, or the values of freedom of speech, religious belief, political freedoms. This Western society is the one I live in and love. And that is why I find it interesting to discuss our faults, our hypocrisies, our double standards; and above all, the contradictions of the leaders on this side of the world. My intention was to introduce the point of view of the Western third world that has been disappointed many times by the leading Western powers. Because we have experienced the contradiction in our own flesh. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: I agree, but it doesn't mean I would support an authoritarian government attacking an innocent country that have little weight in world decisions. Unfortunately, Ukraine is located in a highly strategic place and the decisions it makes are largely decisive in the geopolitical dispute unleashed in Eastern Europe. The decision that Ukraine took was to stop being a neutral country that separated NATO from Russia and wanted to join the Atlantic Alliance. And this is something that the Russians have warned about countless times. Imagine what would happen if Canada or Mexico decided to form a commercial or military alliance with China. You think the US would say "all right guys, this is a free world. You can do whatever you want." Lol, no way man. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: This is really something I hate from ideological people, they are ready to sacrifice innocents to fight against what they define as the evil. How many times I have heard governments in Latin America excusing their oppression in the sake of fighting against imperialism. Curious. That is exactly what the Western powers do: sacrifice the lives of Ukrainians to fight Russian evil; sacrifice the lives of Iraqis (ENTIRE cities bombed) to destroy nuclear weapons that were never found. And let's go with a small list of NATO military interventions since the end of the cold war and the beginning of unipolarity: Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia again (I think 2005/2006?), Libya, Siria; Yemen, with its great ally Saudi Arabia a country that does not respect at all the rights of women or homosexuals etc., is not even a democracy but we like it, because it is our friend, he is in the side of the good guys. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: This is really something I hate from ideological people, they are ready to sacrifice innocents to fight against what they define as the evil. How many times I have heard governments in Latin America excusing their oppression in the sake of fighting against imperialism. I really think most people following the Left are naive and unintelligent puppets. I understand you don't like the US but Ukraine has nothing to do with it by itself. This is a country with its own people, its own history. They didn't have much weight in world decisions in the past, they don't have much weight in world decisions right now. Why should we ignore their persecution because you don't like the West? This is the most naive thing I have ever heard in this discussion. This is a fight between great world powers. It is not a discussion between Ukraine and Russia. It is not "what Ukraine wants or not". Nor was Cuba "what it wanted or not" during the missile crisis. Ukraine is a red line for Russia as Latin America is a red line for the United States. You are willing to admit this and argue in geopolistic terms or you will only argue in moral terms of "good" and "bad." I insist: it is a fight between the great powers. And the world powers are ruthless and will do everything possible to preserve their existence and defeat other great powers in order to build their hegemony. Yes, I mention Cuba because I see that the left bothers you. But it is precisely to give an example of double standards. Cuba is a homophobic and retrograde dictatorship. Yes. Does that justify 60 years of economic blockade? Do you know what something like that means to a poor country? Do you think it is fair that innocent people suffer because they live in a country ruled by bad guys? Why do they live in a dictatorship that we, who are the good guys, don't like? And Saudi Arabia is the democratic paradise we all want? Another thing I find very curious is that you hate ideological people, but only names examples of the left. Aren't the right wings extreme too? Isn't it that you are also an ideological person? Have you ever wondered about this? Besides, I don't dislike US. It's an incredible, super powerful, super innovative country. In fact, I would love to be able to travel one day. But neither do I idealize it, nor do I justify everything it does. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: Most conspiracists think like that too. Pearl Harbor, 11th September 2001, etc. How many times I have heard people saying that 11th September attack was ordered by the CIA/FBI because it served the interest of the US... I agree with you about these conspiracy stories. And I understand that they can use this reasoning but it is not what I have used it for. And it is also a very common reasoning in politics in general. 9 hours ago, Genava55 said: In real history, taking opportunity of bad events is quite common. You don't need to provoke yourself a bad event to take advantage of it. True. But that doesn't mean your response is justified. In the case of Pearl Harbor, it is one thing to destroy a port and another to drop two atomic bombs on two cities. In any case, this war will end when the great powers reach an agreement. Meanwhile, Europe will spend much of its wealth on paying for much more expensive gas to the US, will continue to militarize and become more dependent on the US agenda. Black Rock and other major Western and Eastern arms conglomerates will continue to enrich themselves at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of Slavs who are killing each other. "Divide and you will rule". A divided and conflicted Europe is a weak and dependent Europe. Just what the US needs to sustain its hegemony in the West. And war has not yet broken out in Taiwan. My God. Sometimes I wonder if humans, as a species, really have a future. @Genava55. I apologize if I've gone on too long. But I wanted to answer your questions the best way I can. Edited January 22 by guerringuerrin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.