Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glassman,

I live by common sense, you however aren't providing any. You and I apparently have very different views on what is common sense and what is not. You have provided incorrect conclusions concerning our military tactics and observations. That is not common sense.

I have no intelligent design friends here or in Dover. It is great that the election process worked the way it is designed to.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glassman,

Your tactics in these discussions seems to be one of posting limited quotes, basically the portion that fits your view. That too is not common sense. It is ignoring the whole. You recently stated that Abraham Lincoln was not a Christian, yet that is not the whole truth is it.

For one, we don't know if he was or not. You can believe in Christ and not attend church. Lincoln was once questioned on the matter. His reply:

A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity" -- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.
"I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me." -- Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity, 31 July 1846

When you are confronted by your incorrect assumptions, you ignore them, or as in this case refer the "offender" to some long ago post you made that we must find to get our answers. Again, not common sense. I've seen you refer to having similar debates to this one for over a year here on this board. Good for you. I've had the same debates concerning Iraq for 15 years on other message boards. Should I refer you to those? Or should I discuss it again, even though it is repititious to me. Common sense and simple courtesy says I must repeat it once again.

And then lastly, there is always the ever popular change of subject, and implying that in this case I have some sort of allegience to that topic because you have a faulty image of my position on that topic. In this instance the Dover school board and intelligent design. I'm not a proponent of intelligent design, I simply see no harm in it. Once again, common sense. The theory of evolution which I do believe in does not have all the answers. It remains a theory, just as intelligent design. Dover was not teaching it, they were introducing it as a posibility for individual research if interested.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
strider? what is your point? Lincoln STILL didn't claim Christ in that handbill....
what is your problem? Lincoln was NOT a Christian...
that's waht i said, and that is the truth... you got problems dude...


when i told you i had already posted an answer? it was in reciprocation to your response of the same manner when i politely asked you to document the TWO cases of Iraqi use of WMD...you responded the same way (shall i find the post?)... "i already posted it" you said or something very similar, and i don't think you did but i might have missed it)

I'm not a proponent of intelligent design,

hmmmmm... that's not the impression you gave a little while back..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glassman,

You KNOW Lincoln was not a Christian? How, did you talk with the man?


Lincoln:

"but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures"

Sounds to me like he could be a Christian. The scriptures were "the truth".

So you were reciprocating my response of documenting the WMD's, something that the TWO OF US discussed the day before. You want me to waste time going back and digging up the information again. To what purpose, your memory that short?

I didn't give the impression of being a proponent of intelligent design. You chose to SEE me as a proponent of intelligent design. You see what you want to see and that is becomming more and more apparent.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leo
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Leo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's not forget, Lincoln was a politician...
Posts: 1235 | From: Anacortes, WA | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
strider: You KNOW Lincoln was not a Christian? How, did you talk with the man?


glassy: stupid question doesnt deserve a response...
we both know negatives can't be proven...
Christians claim Christ... he didn't...


Strider:Lincoln:

"but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures"

Sounds to me like he could be a Christian. The scriptures were "the truth".

glassman: sounds to me like you are the only person in the US who is informed and would infer that...big deal... you could also infer that he was a Satanist by using the same logic..it is useless logic


strider: So you were reciprocating my response of documenting the WMD's, something that the TWO OF US discussed the day before. You want me to waste time going back and digging up the information again. To what purpose, your memory that short?

glassman: no, my memory isn't that short, you admitted you cannot prove your claim that Iraq used WMDs since our invasion... asked and answered... you can't prove it so you change the subject after implying that you had proven your point, which you hadn't....


strider: I didn't give the impression of being a proponent of intelligent design. You chose to SEE me as a proponent of intelligent design. You see what you want to see and that is becomming more and more apparent.

glassman: no i didn't see what i want to see...i saw that you don't really make any real points in your meanderings..on the one hand you said you weren't a proponent, but then you argue for religious rights of expression quoting the constitution in a very narrow frame of reference ignoring the whole body of rulings made by the US Supreme Court (and even misrepresenting them).... knowing full well that the intent of the intelligent design program is religiously based..

on several occasions you have conceded my points but then refuted them again in the same posting... i think that you think it shows some sort of skill at debating when in reality it just demonstrates that you have no ethical conviction....

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RiescoDiQui
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RiescoDiQui     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More and more scientists are starting to say there must be a god or higher power of some sort.
As we scientifically unravel more secrets of how the universe was created or even exsists today the more it is apparent that there has to be some form of intellect behind it's creation.
This being said.
Teaching intelligent design as science in a federally funded school is going to be a problem because religios groups are going to throw a fit.
For good reason.
Federally funded schools cannot show prefference towards one religion or another.

--------------------
Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.

Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are right with most of that, but theee are a couple of things I think you miss.

Most of those "More and more scientists are starting to say there must be a god or higher power of some sort" aren't reputable and there is a reason.

"Teaching intelligent design as science in a publically funded school is going to be a problem because religios groups are going to throw a fit. I changed from your "federally" to "publically" for obvious reasons.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glassman,

Not all Christians openly claim Christ. There are many ways, some might say countless ways to worship Christ. Do you know them all? Or are you only recognizing those you can see or want to see. You made the statement that Lincoln was not a Christian. You cannot prove that so it is an inaccurate statement. I'm not claiming he was a Christian, I do not know. I can infer however that he was a religious man who read the Bible and accepted the scriptures as "truth". He was also a man who did not hold men without religion in high regard. I can infer that from his own writings. That does not necessarly make him a Christian but it sure doesn't exclude him either.

I never admitted I can't prove WMD's were used in Iraq. They were used on two seperate occasions. We discussed it, you acknowledged the use in one of the two instances. I see no point in looking up the sources again. The point WAS made. Your memory does appear to be short.

I make points and support them with evidence. You see only what you want to see, then label everything else as "narrow" or "meandering" or some descriptive term that only shows that you are narrow and meandering.

My convictions do not change from post to post or even from day to day. I have been and am a very consistent person. My views on Iraq have not changed much since 1990 when they invaded Kuwait. The changes that occur are because of new information which is learned. Unlike you, I do still regard the OVERWHELMING evidence that existed and still exists that Iraq had WMD's. That has not changed due to some individuals who may be politically motivated to cover their behinds writing the occasional report that says they did not.

Again, you see only what you want to see. That is once again apparent if you see me as changing my views or positions in the same posting. I have very high ethical convictions and your failure to place my postings into the proper context does not change that.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never admitted I can't prove WMD's were used in Iraq. They were used on two seperate occasions. We discussed it, you acknowledged the use in one of the two instances. I see no point in looking up the sources again. The point WAS made. Your memory does appear to be short.


yes you did....

posted November 08, 2005 20:19

http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001319/p/2.html
One involved a Mustard Sarin mix, the other Sarin. Both were positive field tests with no confirming lab test results released on either. As the chemicals degrade very quickly in a desert environment, by the time they were returned to the lab for verification, they would probably get no reading.


and we both know that field tests give false positives....


the CIA report clearly states:

CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge.

Updated: 9:24 p.m. ET April 25, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glassman,

Field tests can give false positives. That they can does not mean these were false. The one had a combination of two agents unrelated to one another. The sophistication of the field tests is quite high these days. It's not just litmus paper anymore. They are set up to not only show an agent is present but what agent is present. False positives are minimized.

Once again, you don't read the entire article, it isn't a report by the way, just a small summary of what the Associated Press reporter felt was relevant.

"Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said."

"Continue to find." Continue means they are finding them and may do so in the future. They are "most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed", yet they still exist and "most likely" isn't much of a determining factor.

They don't KNOW where they are, where they are coming from.

Last I heard, the administration did not follow his recommendation to release those with known ties to the WMD programs. That indicates to me the administration doesn't agree with his recommendation

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again, you don't read the entire article, it isn't a report by the way, just a small summary of what the Associated Press reporter felt was relevant.

"Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said."


actually i did read it, even the first time i posted it several days ago and you should have caught it then, and i was waiting for you to read the article...

point: that article clearly says
"most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed", this clearly says that they were not deliberately kept and stored....
i never denied there were some laying around, just asked you to provide some scientific data which you can't beyond a field test...
and false positives are built into test systems in order to ERR on the side of caution....
just as munitions are built to have some that fail( duds) rather than have them too sensitive and go off accidently...

so once again you are grasping for data to prove your point instead of using an open minded research technique...

i always laugh when people say "research and development" in the same breath...they are separate and distinct things...research is DISCOVERY..development is using discovery to make something. yes, discovery should and almost always happens during development but rarely vice versa

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did read the article.

"most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed"

That does not clearly say they were not deliberately kept and stored, note "most likely".

Most likely clearly states they do not KNOW, if they did they would not use the term "most likely". It is an opinion of the probability of where they are comming from.

Open minded research doesn't misconstrue the wording of articles and reports to mean things they do not.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MasterQuinn
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for MasterQuinn     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So do we all agree that Iraq was not a serious threat to the US?

Because after reading all these posts It seems that you can't really prove there was anything unless you go there and check yourself and you can't prove there wasn't for the same reason.

Therefor we all agree the war was a stupid idea and now lots of people are dead.

The End.

P.S. Putting more democracies in the middle of the middle east will surely call for war with EVERY islamic nation.

Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aragorn243:
I did read the article.

"most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed"

That does not clearly say they were not deliberately kept and stored, note "most likely".

Most likely clearly states they do not KNOW, if they did they would not use the term "most likely". It is an opinion of the probability of where they are comming from.

Open minded research doesn't misconstrue the wording of articles and reports to mean things they do not.

LOL, if in doubt? strider's word is gospel...

you crack me up (sometimes)..

of course you know more than Duelfer wink wink

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MasterQuinn,

I do not agree that Iraq was not a serious threat to the United States.

Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement. That in itself was sufficient cause to renew the attack and remove Hussein.

Hussein failed to provide for the monitored destruction of the WMD's. He openly supported terrorism by paying a "bounty" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He was working and succeeding in getting backing for the removal of the UN sanctions through the oil for food program.

The UN was trying to appease Hussein, it doesn't work. Had the UN united, as it should have, behind the cease fire agreement and the 18 or so resolutions, this war could have been easily been avoided. Hussein did not believe we would attack without the support of the UN. He felt he could get away with more and more because the UN had done nothing to stop him and he was getting more and more of them under his thumb with oil vouchers.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so do you think Deulfer didn't write that with the white house policy-makers in mind? or was he hinting that maybe the white house was right about the wmd but he was just looking for a way to embarass his boss?

on the UN issue? Bush coulda dealt with the UN had he so chosen... oooops wait, he did! that's right, he told them to leave so we could start the war before they finished their job...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glassman,

I'm not going to speculate on why Deulfer wrote anything. For one, I haven't seen the entire report, just bits and pieces that a journalist at AP thought were important. For another, I don't know the man, never spoke with him and I have no clue what motivations he might have about walking his dog at a specific time, let alone why he used certain words in a report.

I don't look for things that I expect to see or want to see, or don't want to see for that matter. That is what I would be doing in answering your questions.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i suggest you read it and then come back and talk to me...
i also suggest you read the presidents own report...

oh that's right you did when i posted the link for you, and you told me it was; what did you say? hindsight? or something like that? it's been a week or two, so i might have the wording wrong...


i read both awhile back, and you are way behind the times with your attitudes. i politelyt toldja that you were behind the times with this justification attitude a week or more ago... but you keep repeating the same thing...even tho the evidence is compelling that the only danger sadam represented was his intellect...
russia and europe don't want terrorism EITHER.... they woulda worked with US had we asked...that wsn't how the gig went down tho..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aragorn243
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aragorn243         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It does sumarize Hussein's intent. It's pretty much what I've been saying all along as well.

Did you read this part?

Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end
sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when
sanctions were lifted.
• Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic
thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait),
maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community.
Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on
strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic
policy.
• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security
of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting
sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign
intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any
WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and
jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime.
OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came
to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to
provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their
international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in
terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions
were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,
irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic
missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s
principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and infl uence in the Arab world
were also considerations, but secondary.
• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the
value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during
the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks
on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred
Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role
in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fi re.
• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither
was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants
understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent,
but fi rm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RiescoDiQui
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RiescoDiQui     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bdgee:
You are right with most of that, but theee are a couple of things I think you miss.

Most of those "More and more scientists are starting to say there must be a god or higher power of some sort" aren't reputable and there is a reason.

"Teaching intelligent design as science in a publically funded school is going to be a problem because religios groups are going to throw a fit. I changed from your "federally" to "publically" for obvious reasons.

Changing federally to public is wrong bdgee... the public as a part or a whole can fund whatever they want... government cannot... since much of school funds come from the federal government without any say so from the public schools are federally funded.
I know that schools are not totally funded by the federal government but enough money comes from them that what they can and cannot teach is limited.

--------------------
Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.

Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and the final statement?
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither
was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants
understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent,
but fi rm, verbal comments and directions to them.


once again we are left with no proof...

and? if you read the whole report? Deulfer clearly sates somewhere that he believes that the intel provided by "his lieutenants" was difficult to interpret for sure, because they had conflicitng needs...those needs were
a) fear of sadam
b) fear of US punishing them...

no, i'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, i'm saying we gathered no physical evidence at all... not even in writing...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

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 | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share