It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For or Against War with Iran

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Finally, we are arriving at reason. Now to go on from here. You need to realise that American intentions are not for the stability and peace of the Middle east, by the very fact, that it is collaborating with Israel and has been weaponizing it to destabalize the Middle East. You could say America has sponsored state terrorism.

America always knew Israel had nuclear weapons and signed a deal with Israel under Nixon, that it would turn a blind eye to it's nuclear program. America's intentions are hostile and selfish. It has nothing to do with Iran 's non-existent nuclear weapons. It has everything to do with conquest and oil.

This is neo-imperialism mate, and are you really going to support neo-imperialism? Is there a good moral, ethical or logical reason too?




I'm fully aware of my corrupt government's agenda in the middle east. I know they could give a rat's @ss about the people there. But I must say America is not the only country, either. Do you think your government has not in the past, and currently is not, looking out for it's best interests, strategically and financially, without regard for human life? All governments are corrupt to some degree. How many lands has Great Britain conquered in it's time? America has sponsored one terrorist regime after another, then turns and calls the regime they previously sponsored the enemy. I know this, again, I'm not brainwashed or stupid.

But unlike my government, I do give a rats @ss about all people. That's why I am so concerned about the creation of another nuclear powder keg, one more volatile than any we have probably ever seen. I don't want to see the people there, not to mention Europe and other neighbors, die, and in huge numbers. If Iran is not trying to create nuclear weapons, then why do they play games with the UN inspectors, the same way North Korea did, dodging, allowing access here, but not there, until they created weapons, then they basically said, "we got them, what are you gonna do about it?" I'm not even worried about NK having nukes, and they're more of a direct threat to me on the west coast than Iran could ever be. But Kim Jong Il is an ego-maniac. He will not sacrifice his empire for a god. With Iran, it may not be for sure, but there is definitely a very high probablility that if any country would use nukes as a hand of god, it will be Iran. Now since we're seeing more eye to eye, please answer, yes or no, do you trust your destiny and your childrens futures in the hands of Iran and Israel? We barely skirted nuclear disaster between Pakistan and India, do you think we should roll the dice again?




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I am not for war. I do not support killing and bloodshed. I hope this can be worked out peacefully, in which everything works out for Iran, and the rest of the world. But I do not want to roll over and expose my belly like a submissive dog if they continue to dodge inspections and buy time so they can pull a North Korea, saying "it's only for energy", until they develop enough weapons to finally say, like NK, "we have the bomb now, what are you going to do about it?" Iran is the one nation IMO, that would not act responsibly with nuclear weapons. I could be wrong I guess, but can we afford for me to be right? I don't trust my destiny in the hands of Iran's mullahs.

[edit on 25-1-2005 by 27jd]

I dont trust my destiny in the hands of an american who believes in nothing but paranioa.
How can you define who is right to have weapons and who is not?
If anything it should be a world vote.
Unless americans dont believe in democracy?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I dont trust my destiny in the hands of an american who believes in nothing but paranioa.


Who are you referring to, me? I gave up my WMD program long ago.



How can you define who is right to have weapons and who is not?


Well, to get technical nobody is right to have them. But even less right to have them would be religious fanatics who advocate violence to enforce the will of their god. And they're not just pretending like Bush, who's god is money. He carries out violence in the name of money, but their is no money in a nuclear wasteland, so he loses big if he uses nukes. Not the case in the minds of religious fanatics. Not even Saddam Hussein was a religious fanatic, I think he had more right to nukes than Iran.



If anything it should be a world vote.


It would be great to see the world step up to the plate on this one, hell, leave America completely out of it if you like, as long as you guys stop these maniacs from getting nukes.



Unless americans dont believe in democracy?


We believe in it I guess, but like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, it doesn't exist, as this last election here proves.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
What is more dangerous for the world today: Put them in order for me:

1. An American government that is constantly at war, is on a mission to "liberate" the world and invades sovereign countries for self-interests and commodities and by lying to it's people and is aligned with hostile nations: Israel and Pakistan. Further, that threatens to completely destabalize the world and thrust us into a world war.

2. An Israeli government that is constant threatening and attacking it's neighbours and blackmailing the world with using nuclear weapons as a political lever. At the same arming conventional missiles with nuclear warheads and says "the next war won't be conventional"

3. An Iranian government that has no nuclear weapons, but maybe a nuclear weapons program to defend itself, that has not attacked any nation, nor used it's chemical and biological weapons for decades and is modernizing.

Please, let reason prevail.

[edit on 26-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Who are you referring to, me? I gave up my WMD program long ago.

No, bush, I dont trust ANY country with nukes because its too much power for to have.



Well, to get technical nobody is right to have them. But even less right to have them would be religious fanatics who advocate violence to enforce the will of their god. And they're not just pretending like Bush, who's god is money. He carries out violence in the name of money, but their is no money in a nuclear wasteland, so he loses big if he uses nukes. Not the case in the minds of religious fanatics. Not even Saddam Hussein was a religious fanatic, I think he had more right to nukes than Iran.

Religion can bring peace and unity but not always.
Before you call them fanatics research them , hell sit down and talk to one.



It would be great to see the world step up to the plate on this one, hell, leave America completely out of it if you like, as long as you guys stop these maniacs from getting nukes.

You call them maniacs but we could call you the same.



We believe in it I guess, but like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, it doesn't exist, as this last election here proves.

It does exist and did exist and still does here in britain, i cant comment on the american election because i dont know much about it and its not my place to comment.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
What is more dangerous for the world today: Put them in order for me:

1. An American government that is constantly at war, is on a mission to "liberate" the world and invades sovereign countries for self-interests and commodities and by lying to it's people and is aligned with hostile nations: Israel and Pakistan. Further, that threatens to completely destabalize the world and thrust us into a world war.


Contrary to what you want to believe, maybe because it seems to be the trendy thing there in Europe now wherever you are, America is not evil. And we are not constantly at war. Iraq, which you already know my feelings on, is the ONLY war we have fought (besides Nam) in which I disagree with. As far as Afghanistan goes, all the Taliban had to do was hand over Bin Laden, and they would still be enjoying the ability to brutally oppress the people of Afghanistan to their hearts content. Now, what about all the muslims we came to the rescue of in Bosnia and Yugoslavia? What was our imperialistic agenda there? What did we gain from that? Why do you choose to be so short sighted, that you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed, just as you have accused me of, into hating my country, all because of one president who is on his last term? I'm not sure what country you're in, but it's probably a country that has enjoyed warm relations with the US in the past, and would probably never be in any danger of US "aggression". If we truly were the evil, imperialistic, Nazi-ish country that you have found it so fashionable to say we are, we would just take the middle east with brute force, just as the Nazis did in Europe, no PC attempts to minimize civilian casualties, no attempt to rebuild, nada. If we were truly evil, we have Iraq under control just like Saddam but worse, there would be insurgency at first, but once we killed everybody who looked at us wrong, as well as their families, and our soldiers viewed everybody as the enemy, instead of at least trying to win the hearts of the people, it would quickly subside. And your heroes, Russia and China would probably not put up to much opposition if we offered them a nice even cut of the oil reserves. They care about the people of the mideast about as much as the "evil" Americans do, if you think otherwise, you took the brown acid. We all know how fond the Russian government is of muslim extremists. We're not a threat to the world, no matter how cool it is to say we are.



2. An Israeli government that is constant threatening and attacking it's neighbours and blackmailing the world with using nuclear weapons as a political lever. At the same arming conventional missiles with nuclear warheads and says "the next war won't be conventional"


Please, provide a link to the instance in which the Israeli government has blackmailed the world with nuclear weapons. Who said "the next war won't be conventional", and when? And you say we're the Nazis? Europe has seen a vast increase in anti-semitism. That's fact. And you only support that fact.



3. An Iranian government that has no nuclear weapons, but maybe a nuclear weapons program to defend itself, that has not attacked any nation, nor used it's chemical and biological weapons for decades and is modernizing.


To defend itself only, yes I'm sure.


I'm going to post this, AGAIN, because you obviously haven't read it. I will bolden something I think you should take particular note of, please tell me your thoughts on these "peaceful" leaders' of Iran, and their statements on these several documented occasions. Who do I think the biggest threat to world peace is, you already know. A nuclear Iran:



There are growing indications that Iran may be planning an attack on American soil. These indicators are not secret — they appear in speeches,newspaper articles, TV programs, and sermons in Iran by figures linked to the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other government officials, all discussing potential Iranian attacks on America, which will subsequently lead to its destruction.

A report on May 28 in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called “The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening.”The paper claimed that it had obtained a tape with a speech by Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University. In the tape, Mr. Abbassi spoke of Tehran’s secret plans, which include “a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.” In order to accomplish this, he explained,“There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.”

It was reported that America expelled two Iranian security guards employed by Tehran’s U.N. offices on June 29, after the mission was repeatedly warned against allowing its guards to videotape bridges, the Statue of Liberty, and New York’s subway system.This was the third time the Iranians have been caught in such activities, which could be connected to the sites mentioned in potential plans to attack America.

Mr. Abbassi’s speech further detailed that “[Iran’s] missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader [Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations.” In fact over the past few months, Mr. Khamenei has been vocal about the impending “destruction of the U.S.” In May, he was quoted in the Iranian paper Jomhouri-Ye Eslami as saying that “the world will witness the annihilation of this arrogant regime.” On July 5, in front of a crowd chanting, “Woe to the enemy if Khamenei commands me to wage jihad,” Mr. Khamenei said, “If someone harms our people and invades our country, we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world.”

Other Iranian religious leaders have also called for the destruction of America. The secretary general of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, appeared on Iran’s Channel 1 TV on June 4 and said, “Every Muslim and every honorable man who is not a Muslim must stand against the Americans, English, and Israelis, and endanger their interests wherever they may be.” When he added “They must not have security,” thousands in the audience repeated chants of “Islam is victorious, America will be annihilated.” On June 25,Mr.Jannati also led prayers and promised, “Anyone who confronted the revolution, the Imam [Khomeini], and our dedicated people eventually collapsed. America is the last one, and Allah willing it will collapse...”The following week Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani delivered the Friday sermon live on Channel 1, saying America will collapse like Genghis Khan’s empire, “I say to you the American people…you will collapse, America will collapse.”

“Time bombs within America” is how Iranian lawmaker Hamid-Reza Katoziyan described Muslims within America, who could be behind future terrorist attacks here. Speaking on Iranian TV channel Jaam-E-Jam 2 on July 27, Mr. Katoziyan warned: “The whole group of people belonging to the Arab community and…Muslims living in the U.S. are currently, in my opinion, in a special situation. Perhaps they do not walk the streets with weapons in their hands or attach bombs to themselves in order to carry out a suicide operation, but the thought is there.”

Just as statements from Iranian religious and political leaders, as well as TV programs, have focused on attacking America, so has the print press. An editorial in the July 6 edition of the Iranian daily Kayhan, the conservative paper affiliated with Mr. Khamenei, issued another warning for the future: “…the White House’s 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes…That very day, those who resist [Iran] will be struck from directions they never expected. The heartbeat of the crisis is undoubtedly [dictated by] the hand of Iran.”

The report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States asks: “September 11 was a day of unprecedented shock…The nation was unprepared…How can we avoid such tragedy again?”Taking seriously Iran’s threatening words and actions is an important first step.


daily.nysun.com...




Please, let reason prevail.


Couldn't agree more.



[edit on 26-1-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
No, bush, I dont trust ANY country with nukes because its too much power for to have.


Oh, well I don't blame you, I don't either, I just distrust some more than others. Allowing more nukes to exist is no way to calm our anxiety.



Religion can bring peace and unity but not always.
Before you call them fanatics research them , hell sit down and talk to one.


I have muslim friends, I never called "them" fanatics, they agree fully that the mullahs in Iran are fanatics. Read above post. Is that not fanatacism?




You call them maniacs but we could call you the same.


It would purely be out of spite if you did, not because we are. I want to see the world exist in total peace, where all people can practice whatever religion they choose, as long as they don't want to kill those who do not practice the same religion, and I'm a maniac? Do you honestly think America will attack your country? Honestly? I have always loved the Europeans, and wanted to visit there, but now you hate us because of one idiot president, you let him influence you way more than I let him influence me, I see him as a temporary inconvenience. My fears of Iran's intentions do not come from his administration either, there has been little talk of an invasion of Iran here, they are trying to downplay it as much as possible. I think they want Iran to use a nuke, it would make it a hell of alot easier for them to invade that way. I don't want that to happen. But I could be called a maniac, I forgot.





It does exist and did exist and still does here in britain, i cant comment on the american election because i dont know much about it and its not my place to comment.


Well, I can, Bush stole the election, again. On the bright side, somebody else will have to steal the next one.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Oh, well I don't blame you, I don't either, I just distrust some more than others. Allowing more nukes to exist is no way to calm our anxiety.

I see what you mean but i find the middle east to be more trustworthy than the western world.
Here is a good quote about nukes and atomic weapons.

"In essence, the conflict that exists today is
no more than an old-style struggle for power,
once again presented to mankind in semi-religious trappings.
The difference is that, this time, the development of atomic power
has imbued the struggle with a ghostly character;
for both parties know and admit that,
should the quarrel deteriorate into actual war, mankind is doomed.
Despite this knowledge, statesmen in responsible positions
on both sides continue to employ the well-known technique
of seeking to intimidate and demoralize the opponent
by marshaling superior military strength.
They do so even though such a policy
entails the risk of war and doom.
Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared
to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace,
the course of supranational security,
since for a statesman to follow such a course
would be tantamount to political suicide.
Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame,
exact their victims ....."




I have muslim friends, I never called "them" fanatics, they agree fully that the mullahs in Iran are fanatics. Read above post. Is that not fanatacism?

It is a point of view , remember one side of the story is nothing like the full story.



It would purely be out of spite if you did, not because we are. I want to see the world exist in total peace, where all people can practice whatever religion they choose, as long as they don't want to kill those who do not practice the same religion, and I'm a maniac? Do you honestly think America will attack your country? Honestly? I have always loved the Europeans, and wanted to visit there, but now you hate us because of one idiot president, you let him influence you way more than I let him influence me, I see him as a temporary inconvenience. My fears of Iran's intentions do not come from his administration either, there has been little talk of an invasion of Iran here, they are trying to downplay it as much as possible. I think they want Iran to use a nuke, it would make it a hell of alot easier for them to invade that way. I don't want that to happen. But I could be called a maniac, I forgot.

You do , but are all those around you fanatics?
Remember you are one of 5 mill people in the USA.
In iran there are diffrent views and opinions.
And they believe in religion more than we do over here.
Some of them want peace but not the same peace as you.





Well, I can, Bush stole the election, again. On the bright side, somebody else will have to steal the next one.

Everyone will debate that one but i dont paticulary like your style of government, i prefer my countries style.


[edit on 26-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I see what you mean but i find the middle east to be more trustworthy than the western world.


Well, your certainly entitled to your own beliefs, I strongly disagree, but you probably think I'm as crazy for disagreeing, as I think you are for that belief.




It is a point of view , remember one side of the story is nothing like the full story.


What other point of view am I missing? How else can those comments from Iran's leaders be taken? At the end of those calls for the Apocolyptic destruction of our (yours AND mine) culture by the leaders of Iran, did they exclaim, "we're just kidding, haha, we love you guys, aren't we just a riot?" Those words cannot be taken any other way, can they? If so, I'm interested to hear what else they meant, what other point of view am I missing from their sermons?



It would purely be out of spite if you did, not because we are. I want to see the world exist in total peace, where all people can practice whatever religion they choose, as long as they don't want to kill those who do not practice the same religion, and I'm a maniac? Do you honestly think America will attack your country? Honestly? I have always loved the Europeans, and wanted to visit there, but now you hate us because of one idiot president, you let him influence you way more than I let him influence me, I see him as a temporary inconvenience. My fears of Iran's intentions do not come from his administration either, there has been little talk of an invasion of Iran here, they are trying to downplay it as much as possible. I think they want Iran to use a nuke, it would make it a hell of alot easier for them to invade that way. I don't want that to happen. But I could be called a maniac, I forgot.




You do , but are all those around you fanatics?


Not those around me, I live in a large city, people here are alot like Europeans, most of us are not religious, those who are are very moderate. The religious fanatics are mostly located in the small towns, and mostly in the midwest and southern US, they have no comprehension, in fact they barely even know there is a world outside theirs. They don't have any influence over the foreign policy of this administration, they were just manipulated into voting in force by the cunning strategy of Karl Rove, the thing about those religious nuts is, they are organized. Unlike the "liberals" who are all very loosely coordinated, if at all, by their own individual "causes". John Stewart hit that nail on the head on the Daily Show last night. But there were still way too many inconsistancies to be sure this election was legitimate.



Some of them want peace but not the same peace as you.


How would you describe the peace you think they want?





Everyone will debate that one but i dont paticulary like your style of government, i prefer my countries style.


Maybe I'll move there.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Well, your certainly entitled to your own beliefs, I strongly disagree, but you probably think I'm as crazy for disagreeing, as I think you are for that belief.


Every one is slightly crazy and i dont think your crazy its just your opinion.



What other point of view am I missing? How else can those comments from Iran's leaders be taken? At the end of those calls for the Apocolyptic destruction of our (yours AND mine) culture by the leaders of Iran, did they exclaim, "we're just kidding, haha, we love you guys, aren't we just a riot?" Those words cannot be taken any other way, can they? If so, I'm interested to hear what else they meant, what other point of view am I missing from their sermons?

The point of view that they are right in thier eyes, look at what has been done to thier people for centuries by mine and your cultures.
What they are doing is wrong i agree but you have to see where they come from and see the logic in thier ways.



Not those around me, I live in a large city, people here are alot like Europeans, most of us are not religious, those who are are very moderate. The religious fanatics are mostly located in the small towns, and mostly in the midwest and southern US, they have no comprehension, in fact they barely even know there is a world outside theirs. They don't have any influence over the foreign policy of this administration, they were just manipulated into voting in force by the cunning strategy of Karl Rove, the thing about those religious nuts is, they are organized. Unlike the "liberals" who are all very loosely coordinated, if at all, by their own individual "causes". John Stewart hit that nail on the head on the Daily Show last night. But there were still way too many inconsistancies to be sure this election was legitimate.

Every party is loosly organised.
Religios fanatics are everywhere, every walk of life and in every time.
No doubt somewhere in that city of yours there is a religios fanatic.




How would you describe the peace you think they want?

Them being more powerful and we all pray to allah.
I dont support this but thats thier view of peace.





Maybe I'll move there.


You might like it, although i do suggest you find a small area and not a big city, our cities are bad as far as i am concerned.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
The point of view that they are right in thier eyes, look at what has been done to thier people for centuries by mine and your cultures.
What they are doing is wrong i agree but you have to see where they come from and see the logic in thier ways.


I see where they are coming from, and maybe I would feel the same if I was born to their culture. But that point of view illustrates my point I think, you don't see how extremely dangerous it is to allow people with that point of view, with that much anger, hatred, and lust for ALL of our blood, whether justified in their eyes or not, to obtain nuclear weapons? We do not wish, the people here or the government, to exterminate them, no matter how superior many of our own think we are, there are no government officials in any of our countries calling for the annihilation of anybody, and no large groups of people in our countries chanting "death to Islam, Islam will be destroyed!" Do you see why I feel one is FAR more likely to use nukes first than the other?



Religios fanatics are everywhere, every walk of life and in every time.
No doubt somewhere in that city of yours there is a religios fanatic.


Sure there are probably some, that's why I said "most".





Them being more powerful and we all pray to allah.
I dont support this but thats thier view of peace.


Exactly. And they desperately want that. And we should not marry desperation with nuclear weaponry.






You might like it, although i do suggest you find a small area and not a big city, our cities are bad as far as i am concerned.


Mine is probably no better.



[edit on 26-1-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I see where they are coming from, and maybe I would feel the same if I was born to their culture. But that point of view illustrates my point I think, you don't see how extremely dangerous it is to allow people with that point of view, with that much anger, hatred, and lust for ALL of our blood, whether justified in their eyes or not, to obtain nuclear weapons? We do not wish, the people here or the government, to exterminate them, no matter how superior many of our own think we are, there are no government officials in any of our countries calling for the annihilation of anybody, and no large groups of people in our countries chanting "death to Islam, Islam will be destroyed!" Do you see why I feel one is FAR more likely to use nukes first than the other?

Yeah but who are we to do this?
It will only increase thier anger and i can see where you are comeing from.






Exactly. And they desperately want that. And we should not marry desperation with nuclear weaponry.

They are not desperate I think its more like they want to do a crusades kind of thing.
Spread the word of allah to the world.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah but who are we to do this?


We are the ones who will die if they make good on their rhetoric. Are we to just allow them to obtain nuclear weapons, and hope they don't do what they said they were going to? That's the point of the question I asked so many times, are we willing to risk everything to ensure "fairness" of nuclear armament for all? It's a very tough call, but one that should be seriously examined, and one that should not be clouded by Bush and his personal mission in Iraq. This issue should be looked at seperately, Saddam himself NEVER used the kind of rhetoric we see coming from the leaders of Iran.



They are not desperate I think its more like they want to do a crusades kind of thing.
Spread the word of allah to the world.


And in their eyes, those who do not accept Allah must die. Again, how can we sit by and let them get nukes?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
As far as im concerned our government system works apart from the MPs spending more of the taxpayers money than they should.

As Vietnam proved, it is incredibly hard to beat a people in their environment.

Who needs another war? the american army is spread too thin already.

War is something built into humans as a method of population control but it doesnt mean its right.

Democrats better win the next election tho.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I would be totally against it. Its insane. We are going after all of Israels enemies. Iran can and won't do anything to us. If we are going after them for having nuclear weapons, why don't we go after North Korea, they say that they do have them and will use them.
If we go after Iran we will certainly end up going after Lebannon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and all the other countries that are in Israels way to help them in their Zionist position. The only people that Iran can hurt is Israel, not us. I say leave them alone. Let Israel handle their own problems.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Against.

Invasion of Iraq won't simply a walk in the park.Well,they haven't pass through the first park yet that is Iraq.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   
War! We can declare peace after we kill the bastards. Ya I have gone mad. So what? Liberals lost their marbels, why can't I.



Golden Shellback..............King Neptune Rex Court is now in session




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join