Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay? (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay?
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If by "totally capitulate" you mean be in such a dire financial situation that the threat of public overthrow of the government is serious enough for them to cave in... yes. They don't fear the US or Isreal, nor should they given current political realities. They do fear their own people however.

Suggesting we keep the pressure on until they implode is not bad advice. Is it a better plan than negotiating now? Who knows? It's a solid theory though.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But if they're close to nukes, what are the chances that they'll implode before they get them? Especially since they didn't seem to have much of an Iranian spring. Doesn't sound like the best plan to me.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Suggesting we keep the pressure on until they implode is not bad advice. Is it a better plan than negotiating now? Who knows? It's a solid theory though.

The results of ME countries "imploding" hasn't been one that speaks to the new regime being any better than the old regime.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Fenring,

"However if the military is equipped with ordnance it doesn't use for a while (peace-time) it will become obsolete or degrade over time and you are left with the option to either just throw it out and upgrade it, or to keep the old stuff for many years until a 'necessary war' occurs. "...

That is the reason I think we should exhaust our Minuteman II inventory on taking out Iranian enrichment facilities.

This type of approach, while efficient, has as its working premise that we're going to find someone as a target so we can unload our old weaponry on them. Who it is doesn't matter, but Iran seems like the most expedient choice right now.

The problem with this idea is that it absolutely establishes that the USA is an empire that lubricates its machinery with the blood of foreigners.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

"I don't see how you can suggest this and still call Netanyahu's speech seminal. He did a whole bunch of tap dancing to suggest such drastic action wouldn't be necessary. "...

... And concluded by saying that Israel would stand alone in effecting a strike if necessary (to a standing ovation of the entire House).

"He wasn't saying Iran will get nukes if we don't blow them up... "...

You may be splitting hairs on *who* would "blow them up", but if that was the only option remaining then Netanyahu was clear about Israel's position.

"... he was saying Iran will give up on nukes if we're slightly meaner to them. "...

No, he said they would be back at the table if Barry stood his ground.

"He was telling politicians that they didn't need to make a decision on an imperfect treaty but just wait a little longer and Iran will totally capitulate. "...

No, he said the regime could be brought to it's knees economically because of factors such as the new petro environment, and general worldwide economic decline.

[ March 05, 2015, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

The "target" is nuclear fuel enrichment facilities.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course they gave him a standing ovation, he was letting them off the hook.

But if Iran can't be trusted, what does it matter if they go back to the table? What can they offer short of giving up their nuclear program that would make re-negotiation worthwhile?

So how has economic destitution affected NK's nuclear program?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Fenring,

The "target" is nuclear fuel enrichment facilities.

Out of curiosity, do we have satellite photos showing the exact details of these facilities, including photos of nuclear materials being transported there? I'm curious, essentially, about our actual level of intelligence regarding the nuclear program, and about why, if such intelligence exists, it isn't just turned over fully to the public to rally them behind a military action?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

"Of course they gave him a standing ovation, he was letting them off the hook. "...

No, he put Barry on the hook to explain to the legislature any treaty our esteemed Secretary of State manages to mangle.

"But if Iran can't be trusted, what does it matter if they go back to the table? "...

Sanctions!

"What can they offer short of giving up their nuclear program that would make re-negotiation worthwhile? "

Yes, what else can they offer.

"So how has economic destitution affected NK's nuclear program? "...

Does Iran have a partner like China on its border?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"Out of curiosity, do we have satellite photos showing the exact details of these facilities, including photos of nuclear materials being transported there? "...

Not for public consumption.

"I'm curious, essentially, about our actual level of intelligence regarding the nuclear program, and about why, if such intelligence exists, it isn't just turned over fully to the public to rally them behind a military action? "...

That is a bad strategy from a military standpoint, and Barry does not have the organizational ability to rally a Brownie troop for basket making. (Even if he had the inclination)

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which would be letting Congress off the hook about deciding to ratify the treaty or not.

Sanctions? That's worked so well in the past.

Look, all I'm saying is that the speech doesn't actually provide anything useful in dealing with Iran. That it provides an example of how Hannibal was critisizing Netanyahu. I'd think a lot more highly of it if he'd just said: Iran will cheat on any deal they make. So we're going to blow them to hell with or without your help.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that now he has license. [Wink]
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where is the ME coefficient of China? There isn't one. Great point Noel.

We have no major reason to let Iran get nukes and every reason to stop them.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

"I'm curious, essentially, about our actual level of intelligence regarding the nuclear program, and about why, if such intelligence exists, it isn't just turned over fully to the public to rally them behind a military action? "...

That is a bad strategy from a military standpoint, and Barry does not have the organizational ability to rally a Brownie troop for basket making. (Even if he had the inclination)

Maybe it's sub-optimal strategically (although I would question what the big deal is, really), but handing over evidence of a nuclear program has the beneficial side-effect of actually demonstrating that there is an ongoing nuclear program. You see, "top secret" can also be doublespeak for "it's not really true and no one can call us on it because we don't need to prove anything to the public." This last scenario is so vile that even accepting a marginal tactical disadvantage abroad is superior to this by far, to say nothing of the fact that we've seen proven, documented evidence time and again that governments including the U.S. government will fabricate evidence to justify war.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, that dovetails with an ugly little thought I had about the administration's diplomatic efforts. That they're fully aware that Iran's going to cheat and they've got a good handle on how. So they sign the treaty, give Iran six months to well and truly blow the provisions, and then start beating the war drum. Then go into the 2016 election bolstered by a rousing bombing campaign.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"Maybe it's sub-optimal strategically (although I would question what the big deal is, really) "...

The fuel refining capacity itself is fairly stationary, whereas the refined product is highly mobile. That is why it would be foolish to publicize locations.

"This last scenario is so vile that even accepting a marginal tactical disadvantage abroad is superior to this by far, to say nothing of the fact that we've seen proven, documented evidence time and again that governments including the U.S. government will fabricate evidence to justify war. "...

Who is talking about war? I just want to deliver multiple 1,100 pound bundles of tungsten rods at Mach 22 into "uninhabited" Iranian territory. If you want ex post facto evidence of necessity, the glowing holes should be sufficiently radioactive to satisfy any skeptics.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

quote:
"This last scenario is so vile that even accepting a marginal tactical disadvantage abroad is superior to this by far, to say nothing of the fact that we've seen proven, documented evidence time and again that governments including the U.S. government will fabricate evidence to justify war. "...
Who is talking about war? I just want to deliver multiple 1,100 pound bundles of tungsten rods at Mach 22 into "uninhabited" Iranian territory. If you want ex post facto evidence of necessity, the glowing holes should be sufficiently radioactive to satisfy any skeptics.
I don't primarily want ex post facto evidence, although it's always nice to get confirmation after the fact. However, contrary to what recent history would suggest, committing an act of war against a foreign power is war; it just means it wasn't legally declared. Granted, there is such a thing as a skirmish that doesn't amount to much of a war, but answer this: If some foreign nation decided to drop bombs on an American military facility on American soil, you wouldn't call that an effective declaration of war? It is humane to make strikes that avoid casualties, but this fact doesn't cause an act of war to suddenly be reduced to 'just a bombing mission.'

In a different thread we were talking about the CIA and torture, and when I asked what would happen if a U.S. agency overtly defied the law and committed acts beyond what they were allowed, and then hid the fact, you called that "Houston, we have a problem." Don't you think that the need to oversee government is very important precisely to avoid Houston having a problem?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't primarily want ex post facto evidence, although it's always nice to get confirmation after the fact. However, contrary to what recent history would suggest, committing an act of war against a foreign power is war; it just means it wasn't legally declared. "...

Tell John Kerry that. Perhaps he will reappraise the wisdom of negotiating with terrorists.

"Granted, there is such a thing as a skirmish that doesn't amount to much of a war, but answer this: If some foreign nation decided to drop bombs on an American military facility on American soil, you wouldn't call that an effective declaration of war? "...

If America was a terrorist nation, it would be suicidal to "offend" our God in a homologous comparison. That is why Iran cannot be allowed to weaponize reactor "fuel".

"It is humane to make strikes that avoid casualties, but this fact doesn't cause an act of war to suddenly be reduced to 'just a bombing mission.' "...

My conscience can bear that burden under the current fact set.

"In a different thread we were talking about the CIA and torture, and when I asked what would happen if a U.S. agency overtly defied the law and committed acts beyond what they were allowed, and then hid the fact, you called that 'Houston, we have a problem.' Don't you think that the need to oversee government is very important? "...

Yes, and Barry has adequate authorization from congress to do what I have described.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My conscience can bear that burden...
Which burdens can your conscience not bear, noel?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Remaining aloof to the destruction of the nation of Israel rises very high on a long list.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting. Why do you care about Israel?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you care about irradiated holes in the Iranian landscape?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

quote:
"Granted, there is such a thing as a skirmish that doesn't amount to much of a war, but answer this: If some foreign nation decided to drop bombs on an American military facility on American soil, you wouldn't call that an effective declaration of war? "...
If America was a terrorist nation, it would be suicidal to "offend" our God in a homologous comparison. That is why Iran cannot be allowed to weaponize reactor "fuel".

Since Iran doesn't call itself a terrorist state, from their perspective an American bombing would just be an act of war. The direct analogy, then, would be if a foreign nation thought of the U.S. as a terrorist nation, and bombed an American facility on American soil. You might say they're full of it to call America that, and an Iranian might say you're full of it also. In short: Who cares who's full of it. Would you not call such a bombing an act of war against America?

If so, the implication is that you are advocating war against Iran. So far this isn't a problematic position. The problematic part comes when you are going to declare a war based on reasons that are potentially a lie. The evidence I asked you about (which we both know doesn't exist) would be to verify that the President would be declaring war for reasons that are honestly presented.

Let's say, for instance, that Iran was a terror sponsor in the same general sense that several nations are at this time (including Saudi Arabia). Let's also say they had no nuclear program at all and this angle was a lie. Assuming these premises, would you say it would be "ok" for the U.S. to declare war on Iran on the grounds of stopping their nuclear program?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"The direct analogy, then, would be if a foreign nation thought of the U.S. as a terrorist nation, and bombed an American facility on American soil. You might say they're full of it to call America that, and an Iranian might say you're full of it also. In short: Who cares who's full of it. Would you not call such a bombing an act of war against America? "...

Do you believe the seizure of sovereign U.S. territory, and the kidnapping of American non-combatants for 444 days, is an act of war?

"The problematic part comes when you are going to declare a war based on reasons that are potentially a lie. "...

Do you know when the last instance of America declaring war was? Do these statements sound like a declaration of war? :

“God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.” —Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on October 26, 2005

“Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.” —Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on June 2, 2008, marking the 19th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini

“Get ready for a world minus the U.S.” —Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on June 4, 2008

"The evidence I asked you about (which we both know doesn't exist) would be to verify that the President would be declaring war for reasons that are honestly presented. "...

Why do you believe you "know" this evidence doesn't exist? You can see the logical inconsistency, correct?

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that an oil rich nation like Iran really needs thousands of nuclear fuel enrichment centrifuges to supplement the energy needs of a dead economy. What risk do you see in some spectacular turning of Iranian earth?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Err, I think you missed the point of my questions. Let me rephrase in case something was unclear: If a statement is made that "We will go to war on Iran because of X" and X turns out to be a lie, is that ok?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I did not miss your point. I see no reason to declare war on Iran. I do see a reason to vaporize their nuclear program.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
No, I did not miss your point. I see no reason to declare war on Iran. I do see a reason to vaporize their nuclear program.

"We are going to attack Iran because of X," and X is a lie. Is that ok?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"We are going to attack Iran because of X," and X is a lie. Is that ok? "...

Better, but still not there. You are attempting to apply a retread of the "Bush lied, and people died" mantra. It was hyperbolic nonsense then, and the rhetorical prejudices inherent in that formulation have not improved with age.

A more accurate rendering of my position is;

"The Iranian leadership's apocalyptic vision of fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with posession of nuclear weapons, and the elimination of one, or the other, of those facts is okay... "

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be a shame if we eliminated a leadership whose vision was incompatible with nuclear weaponry, thus allowing for leaders whose visions were more compatible with it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It would be a shame if we eliminated a leadership whose vision was incompatible with nuclear weaponry, thus allowing for leaders whose visions were more compatible with it. "...

... Hence the desirability of enhanced economic sanctions.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing is, I'm not entirely clear on what "enhanced economic sanctions" are in this context, or how we would be able to impose them when countries like Russia (and France, for that matter) aren't interested in them.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Elect a new U.S. President. In the interim, eliminate the Iranian nuclear capability.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, yeah, I'm not sure how a new president is going to help that situation, especially when I look at the current field of candidates. Not one of them appears capable of beating Putin at naked oil wrestling, which is really all that would be likely to help.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The GOP might pick someone stupid enough to trade Belarus for Russia's support on sanctions.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We could always give them Texas or Utah. They like Putin's leadership style, I hear, and it's not like we need either state.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom-We're not much better in Wisconsin.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, yeah, but given what Walker's done to the Wisconsin economy, it's not like that would be much of a gift.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
f, what are you saying is a lie? Iran's nuke program?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
f, what are you saying is a lie? Iran's nuke program?

I'm saying boy wouldn't it be nice to get proof positive for a change. But instead the public is fed the same slop as always and nothing changes. It basically means an administration that is supposed to represent the people is completely autocratic and does whatever it wants. This isn't news to anyone, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge how stupid the situation is. How many false flags or outright deceptions are needed before this isn't tolerated any more?

There is, of course, a chance that's what they're saying about Iran is all true, in which case it would be good to be shown that.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is also the fact that the Mossad has contradicted Bibi's statements. Sad to think Bibi has a better handle on the state of the Iranian nuclear state than his intelligence agency.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1