1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Peace In Our Time


  2. #2
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    There will never be peace on Earth as long as people are allowed to be individuals and form their own opinions.

    This is something I can agree with. I don't think it is enough though. We need to reduce our overall military presence in the world. Bringing all of our troops back home and having just enough to defend our soil would easily pay for any silly health care reform proposal out there. Probably part of the reason we don't have the money for other initiatives stems from the fact we supply half of the worlds Armies.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    By using some diplomacy and working with Russia we are able to move trains carrying US supplies through Russia to Afghanistan, reducing the risk of attacks from the Taliban and the risk of loosing US lives.

    We have some leverage now regarding Russia and Iran.

    We took a big chunk of Defense spending out of the budget.

    We are showing the rest of the world that we can actually engage in Diplomacy, which involves a delicate give and take, instead of just doing whatever we want, wherever we want it.

    Maybe the times of "F*** You World!!! We are the USA and we do what we want!!!!" are slowing down...
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    New Defense Plan Announced

    The Europeans will be able to sleep safely again...
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    By using some diplomacy and working with Russia we are able to move trains carrying US supplies through Russia to Afghanistan, reducing the risk of attacks from the Taliban and the risk of loosing US lives.

    We have some leverage now regarding Russia and Iran.

    We took a big chunk of Defense spending out of the budget.

    We are showing the rest of the world that we can actually engage in Diplomacy, which involves a delicate give and take, instead of just doing whatever we want, wherever we want it.

    Maybe the times of "F*** You World!!! We are the USA and we do what we want!!!!" are slowing down...
    AMEN to that. Hopefully we can reverse a 70 year trend

  6. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    New Defense Plan Announced

    The Europeans will be able to sleep safely again...
    How about the Europeans build their own missile system. The idea behind NATO was to help out when needed, not be the provider of defense for the rest of the world.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    You two teamup on this in the clueless pollyanna club.

    This world is still a dangerous plan and playing 1938 borders at the ocean is not going to work any better not that it did in. Good case that the world is more dangerous now that in 1985 when NATO/US and Warsaw/USSR were keeping opposing wack jobs in their place. Now we have islamist wackos intent on taking the West down. Forgot about the war on terror? Or did you surrender at same time as Obama? The islamists have not surrendered.


    Who is "we" bub? The Clintonistas that gutted DOD with the idiotic "peace divident" in the 90s and gave us 9-11? Or Obama.

    The US has made a promise to Poland and Czech at we (NATO) will protect them from the resurgent (KGB) Russian. The Missle shield has a mission to protect Europe form Iranian nukes on Intermet range Ballistic missles. The , Iranians already have the missle required (purchased from the Russians) and absent LEADERSHIP and ACTION will have nuc warheads within a couple years. Not a pretty picture for anywhere within 1000mi of Iran. We have stabed Poland and Czech in the back. Both are better friends of the US that most European countries.

    The Obama speach on the cut was total BS. Mobile - Patriot. Have had in Eastern Europe. Dispite the Gulf war PR spin are very limited in anti-missle role. Total BS AGAIN from Obama.

    I think not a done deal. As idiotic as anything else Obama has come up with.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    And here I was, reading the title and wondering who da world decided to post something about British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his bid for peace with the Nazis. Ok, so the second reference was directed that way, and in reading the first article, I can see what neiowa was after.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    The SecDef disagrees with you.

    No one has forgotten anything.

    Even during the 90's, the US spent as much on defense almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

    How much is enough?
    Last edited by scfire86; 09-17-2009 at 08:47 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #10
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    You two teamup on this in the clueless pollyanna club.

    This world is still a dangerous plan and playing 1938 borders at the ocean is not going to work any better not that it did in. Good case that the world is more dangerous now that in 1985 when NATO/US and Warsaw/USSR were keeping opposing wack jobs in their place. Now we have islamist wackos intent on taking the West down. Forgot about the war on terror? Or did you surrender at same time as Obama? The islamists have not surrendered.


    Who is "we" bub? The Clintonistas that gutted DOD with the idiotic "peace divident" in the 90s and gave us 9-11? Or Obama.

    The US has made a promise to Poland and Czech at we (NATO) will protect them from the resurgent (KGB) Russian. The Missle shield has a mission to protect Europe form Iranian nukes on Intermet range Ballistic missles. The , Iranians already have the missle required (purchased from the Russians) and absent LEADERSHIP and ACTION will have nuc warheads within a couple years. Not a pretty picture for anywhere within 1000mi of Iran. We have stabed Poland and Czech in the back. Both are better friends of the US that most European countries.

    The Obama speach on the cut was total BS. Mobile - Patriot. Have had in Eastern Europe. Dispite the Gulf war PR spin are very limited in anti-missle role. Total BS AGAIN from Obama.

    I think not a done deal. As idiotic as anything else Obama has come up with.
    Then let the rest of the world foot the bill. What next the Universe???

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Did Putin buy Obama flowers first?

    Now Obama arbitraily decides to get rid of the nasty ole nukes (which Putin and the rest of the KGBistas still fear).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...uclear-weapons

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Ask Neville Chamberlain and the elder generation of Brits how "Peace in our time" worked out for them.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaSharkie View Post
    Ask Neville Chamberlain and the elder generation of Brits how "Peace in our time" worked out for them.
    Actually, I get reminded of it regularlary, this past Sunday, at the Battle of Britain memorial service is a good example. The United Nations Veterans parade back in July is another.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    I was stationed in Germany in 70. We had a saying there, If the Russians decided to invade Europe, it would take them a week. One day to get there and the next 6 to quit laughing. We were so badly outnumbered that we could not have delayed the a day. the Nukes, MAD, may have held them in check, but if you think that the USA would have unleashed them on Europe, you are sadly mistaken. The best diplomats would be soldiers who have actually been there and know the horrors of war.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Here is a strictly rhetorical question:

    How many nuclear warheads does it really take to F*** the world to high hell?

    Let's say the USA has 500 and the Russians have 500. By the time both sides blow their warheads at each other we have 1000 nuclear bombs exploding around the world, in addition to the ones the rest of the countries will lob at each other.

    Once 1000 nuclear bombs have mushroomed around the globe, do an additional 2000 bombs really make that much difference?

    We are talking the difference of holding 5 guns against my head at point blank range, or 50 guns against my head at point blank range. Either way I'm f***ed.

    More bombs just mean more opportunities for screw ups. How many nuclear oops's have we had over the last 5 years?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    How many do the forces of good need to have? How many of anything are required? Twice as many as controlled by the unreformed commie pinkos.

    The KGB back to funding the hyperventilating pants wetting antinuc activists of the 80s? Raise the price. Putin has LOTS of oil money today.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    How many do the forces of good need to have? How many of anything are required? Twice as many as controlled by the unreformed commie pinkos.

    The KGB back to funding the hyperventilating pants wetting antinuc activists of the 80s? Raise the price. Putin has LOTS of oil money today.
    Please by all means post your refences which will confirm that Russia is using all that oil money to rebuild their nuclear capabilities. Your inane ranting would do old Joe McCarthy proud.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    How many do the forces of good need to have? How many of anything are required? Twice as many as controlled by the unreformed commie pinkos.

    The KGB back to funding the hyperventilating pants wetting antinuc activists of the 80s? Raise the price. Putin has LOTS of oil money today.
    So if the Russians can blow up the world once, you think that they will stop because we can blow up the world twice?

    What stops the Russians from building more nukes than the USA? And really why shouldn't they? They are a country that is allowed to protect themselves just as much as we are.

    After all, who is the only country in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons against somebody else? Twice?

    And between the USA and the Russians, who is currently fighting two wars and occupying other countries?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I was stationed in Germany in 70. We had a saying there, If the Russians decided to invade Europe, it would take them a week. One day to get there and the next 6 to quit laughing. We were so badly outnumbered that we could not have delayed the a day. the Nukes, MAD, may have held them in check, but if you think that the USA would have unleashed them on Europe, you are sadly mistaken. The best diplomats would be soldiers who have actually been there and know the horrors of war.
    I was there in the late 70s. We had this place just down the road for our post that was about 7 or 8 acres in size. Some mounds of dirt well kept, fenced in. No one knew what it was, but I have my suspicions. Funny thing is I looked at the place on Google maps. You an see the post, and all of the helicopters, but that little area is blocked out.

  20. #20
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Interesting - From the LA Times

    Missile defense shift has winners and losers

    Obama's decision to halt a proposed ground-based system in Europe will hurt Boeing, but Raytheon and Lockheed Martin stand to benefit because they make and control ship-based weapons.
    By Mike Musgrove

    Washington - President Obama's decision last week to scrap a proposed ground-based missile defense system in Europe was bad news for Boeing Co. and other contractors associated with the plan, but it could be a boon for Raytheon Co. and other companies that produce ship-based systems, analysts said.

    Boeing had been slated to manage the construction and installation of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland that were part of the Bush administration's original plans.

    "The losers are clear," said Phil Finnegan of research firm Teal Group. "Boeing was going to develop that site, and obviously that's not going to happen."

    The announcement also came as bad news, he said, for Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., which was going to supply 10 interceptors for the missile shield. During the Bush administration, the U.S. military designed its defense plans with the expectation that Iran would soon develop long-range missile capabilities, defense industry consultant Loren Thompson said. That didn't happen, he said.

    Raytheon of Waltham, Mass., and Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda, Md., stand to benefit from what will probably be an increase in U.S. government contracts, analysts said. Raytheon makes the ship-based missiles, and Lockheed makes their control system.

    John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense industry research firm, said that under the Obama administration's proposed approach of using ship-based missiles to protect against threats from Iran, "you're going to need all these missiles that Raytheon makes, zillions of them."


    So...Does this count as anti-stimulus?

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all

    By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
    Published: September 23, 2009

    NEW YORK Seizing a chance to challenge the world, President Barack Obama says the global community is failing its people and fixing that is not "solely America's endeavor."

    "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said in a passage of the speech he was delivering Wednesday to the United Nations General Assembly.

    The White House released excerpts in advance that carried a remarkably blunt tone.

    It comes in Obama's first speech to this world body, a forum like none other for a leader hoping to wash away any lasting images of U.S. unilateralism under George W. Bush.

    In essence, Obama's message is that he expects plenty in return for reaching out.

    "We have sought in word and deed a new era of engagement with the world," Obama said, echoing the cooperative theme he promised as a candidate and has since used as a pillar of his foreign policy. "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility."

    He said if the world is honest with itself, it has fallen woefully short.

    "Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world," Obama said. "Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations. Persistent poverty and pandemic disease."

    The president added, "I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action."

    Obama's speech is the centerpiece of a day in which he was also holding pivotal meetings with the new Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

    Immersed in a packed agenda here, Obama foreshadowed his message to world leaders in a speech Tuesday to the Clinton Global Initiative. He spoke of nations interconnected by problems, whether a flu strain or an economic collapse or a drug trade that crosses borders.

    "Just as no nation can wall itself off from the world, no one nation no matter how large, no matter how powerful can meet these challenges alone," Obama said.

    While that point is hardly new, it is sharper because of the political context. Obama follows Bush, who at times questioned the U.N.'s toughness and credibility, particularly in containing Iraq's Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-U.N. relationship wilted.

    Obama's team is intent on drawing the contrast.

    "The United States has dramatically changed the tone, the substance and the practice of our diplomacy at the United Nations," said Susan Rice, Obama's ambassador to the U.N.

    But multilateralism has its limits, particularly as national interests collide.

    Obama needs the sway of Russia and China in getting tougher U.N. action against Iran over its potential nuclear weapons program, and neither country is showing interest.

    While other world leaders could push for Mideast peace, it was Obama who personally intervened in pulling together the Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Tuesday. He showed some impatience as both sides have been stalled over familiar issues.

    The good-will feeling of Obama's fresh government is apparent at the United Nations.

    But eight months into his presidency, the problems he inherited are now his own, upping expectations for results. His White House is being pressed to right the war in Afghanistan. And his efforts toward diplomacy with adversaries, chiefly Iran and North Korea, are not meant to be open-ended.

    Obama's day starts with his meeting with Hatoyama, who has said he wants to shift Japan's diplomatic stance from one that is less centered on Washington's lead.

    Later, Obama was meeting with Medvedev. That session comes just days following Obama's decision to abruptly scrap a Bush-era missile defense plan that Russia deeply opposed, swapping it for a proposal the U.S. says better targets any launch by Iran.

    Russian leaders rejoiced over Obama's move, but he dismissed any role Russia may have played and called it just a bonus if the country is now less "paranoid" about the U.S.

    Read more: http://newsok.com/obama-to-world-don...#ixzz0Rw65WjH5
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    Maybe I'm off my rocker here, but seems to me that "missile defence" is just opiate for the masses (or in this case "Country Leaders") to make themselves and their voters feel better. Something about My Bombs Are Bigger Than Your Bombs comes to mind.
    If you don't do it RIGHT today, when will you have time to do it over? (Hall of Fame basketball player/coach John Wooden)

    "I may be slow, but my work is poor." Chief Dave Balding, MVFD

    "Its not Rocket Science. Just use a LITTLE imagination." (Me)

    Get it up. Get it on. Get it done!

    impossible solved cotidie. miracles postulo viginti - quattuor hora animadverto

    IACOJ member: Cheers, Play safe y'all.

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    Only because it is in a similar vein of topic:

    MacKay backs general who lashed out at tribal leaders

    By Janice Tibbets, Canwest News Service September 28, 2009

    OTTAWA Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he stands behind his top general in Afghanistan, who warned Afghans on Monday that Canada is going to halt development unless he starts getting information from the locals about who is planting roadside bombs that are maiming and killing Canadians.

    Brig.-Gen. Jonathan Vance, commander of the Canadian troops, lashed out at elders in a Kandahar village after one of his soldiers was injured in a bomb explosion, saying that he wanted to start seeing some "serious co-operation" from the beneficiaries of Canadian aid.

    "If we keep blowing up on the roads I'm going to stop doing development," Vance told a meeting he hastily convened with village elders in Deh-e-Bagh in the district of Dand, according to news reports.

    "If we stop doing development in Dand, I believe Afghanistan and Kandahar is a project that cannot be saved."

    He also reportedly mused about whether it was "worth another Canadian life" if the situation didn't immediately change.

    MacKay said he understands Vance's frustration and the minister concurred that the co-operation of villagers is essential to the ability of Canadians to deliver development and programs, such as immunizing children and building schools.

    "Do I think that our security is directly linked to development? Absolutely, and I think perhaps the way in which Gen. Vance has expressed it is indicative of the frustration that he was feeling and certainly the trauma that one would feel after being bombed on the road," MacKay said on Parliament Hill.

    "There is a connection between our ability to deliver and the security and co-operation we require from local Afghans."

    MacKay dismissed the prospect that Vance was issuing an ultimatum, saying that his message was more "help us to help you."

    NDP defence critic Jack Harris, however, said that Vance's outburst was "a very surprising reaction from a general who is supposedly trying to win the hearts and minds of the people he is trying to protect in Afghanistan."

    Harris said that identifying Taliban insurgents and giving Canadians advance warning of bomb attacks would not be easy in the complicated politics of Afghanistan.

    "To try to simplify the matter by saying, 'You tell us who the Taliban are or we're walking out of here,' is basically throwing up his hands and saying we don't know how to solve this problem, we don't know how to fight this war," Harris said.

    Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


    Somehow I think that this "outburst" should not be viewed as any kind of surpirse at all, except maybe to wonder that someone hasn't "said it before". I also think the frustration sentiment is felt by all Coalition Forces operating in the region.

    From the briefings that I've received over the past few months, the basic root of the IED/Taliban problem is that everytime troops go in and set up wells and other infrastructure, a few weeks later they pull out. Then the Taliban moves in and destroys it all. Essentially, how can you engage in combat with a shadow? It makes the village elders nervous and essentially uncooperative, but who can blame them?

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post
    Only because it is in a similar vein of topic:

    MacKay backs general who lashed out at tribal leaders

    By Janice Tibbets, Canwest News Service September 28, 2009

    OTTAWA Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he stands behind his top general in Afghanistan, who warned Afghans on Monday that Canada is going to halt development unless he starts getting information from the locals about who is planting roadside bombs that are maiming and killing Canadians.

    Brig.-Gen. Jonathan Vance, commander of the Canadian troops, lashed out at elders in a Kandahar village after one of his soldiers was injured in a bomb explosion, saying that he wanted to start seeing some "serious co-operation" from the beneficiaries of Canadian aid.

    "If we keep blowing up on the roads I'm going to stop doing development," Vance told a meeting he hastily convened with village elders in Deh-e-Bagh in the district of Dand, according to news reports.

    "If we stop doing development in Dand, I believe Afghanistan and Kandahar is a project that cannot be saved."

    He also reportedly mused about whether it was "worth another Canadian life" if the situation didn't immediately change.

    MacKay said he understands Vance's frustration and the minister concurred that the co-operation of villagers is essential to the ability of Canadians to deliver development and programs, such as immunizing children and building schools.

    "Do I think that our security is directly linked to development? Absolutely, and I think perhaps the way in which Gen. Vance has expressed it is indicative of the frustration that he was feeling and certainly the trauma that one would feel after being bombed on the road," MacKay said on Parliament Hill.

    "There is a connection between our ability to deliver and the security and co-operation we require from local Afghans."

    MacKay dismissed the prospect that Vance was issuing an ultimatum, saying that his message was more "help us to help you."

    NDP defence critic Jack Harris, however, said that Vance's outburst was "a very surprising reaction from a general who is supposedly trying to win the hearts and minds of the people he is trying to protect in Afghanistan."

    Harris said that identifying Taliban insurgents and giving Canadians advance warning of bomb attacks would not be easy in the complicated politics of Afghanistan.

    "To try to simplify the matter by saying, 'You tell us who the Taliban are or we're walking out of here,' is basically throwing up his hands and saying we don't know how to solve this problem, we don't know how to fight this war," Harris said.

    Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


    Somehow I think that this "outburst" should not be viewed as any kind of surpirse at all, except maybe to wonder that someone hasn't "said it before". I also think the frustration sentiment is felt by all Coalition Forces operating in the region.

    From the briefings that I've received over the past few months, the basic root of the IED/Taliban problem is that everytime troops go in and set up wells and other infrastructure, a few weeks later they pull out. Then the Taliban moves in and destroys it all. Essentially, how can you engage in combat with a shadow? It makes the village elders nervous and essentially uncooperative, but who can blame them?
    What's the old saying?

    You cannot help anyone who does not want to help themselves?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Even more fun from religion of peace-
    By SPFDRum in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 08:26 PM
  2. Orgasm for peace
    By kjohn23 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 11-22-2006, 04:40 PM
  3. Rest in Peace
    By Station292 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-21-2004, 01:33 AM
  4. May They Rest In Peace
    By jimhiggins in forum Line of Duty: In Memory Of
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2002, 07:58 PM
  5. Rest in Peace
    By ResQRev in forum Line of Duty: In Memory Of
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-04-2002, 05:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register