HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » General Wesley Clark sayi...

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:35 PM

 

General Wesley Clark saying plans to attack Syria were hatched within weeks of 9/11/01



Please don't lock this for being a "conspiracy theory". It's not a "theory" when it's the truth.

39 replies, 6761 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply General Wesley Clark saying plans to attack Syria were hatched within weeks of 9/11/01 (Original post)
Electric Monk Sep 2013 OP
warrant46 Sep 2013 #1
tecelote Sep 2013 #2
adieu Sep 2013 #35
BootinUp Sep 2013 #3
freshwest Sep 2013 #21
Tx4obama Sep 2013 #4
BillyRibs Sep 2013 #5
Tx4obama Sep 2013 #6
cpwm17 Sep 2013 #14
Tx4obama Sep 2013 #16
cpwm17 Sep 2013 #22
Tx4obama Sep 2013 #23
cpwm17 Sep 2013 #24
HumansAndResources Sep 2013 #31
BillyRibs Sep 2013 #36
tecelote Sep 2013 #9
tecelote Sep 2013 #10
BootinUp Sep 2013 #17
tecelote Sep 2013 #18
840high Sep 2013 #19
Carolina Sep 2013 #34
BillyRibs Sep 2013 #37
Electric Monk Sep 2013 #7
tecelote Sep 2013 #11
freshwest Sep 2013 #32
BillyRibs Sep 2013 #38
polly7 Sep 2013 #8
BillyRibs Sep 2013 #39
Coyotl Sep 2013 #12
BootinUp Sep 2013 #15
Tx4obama Sep 2013 #20
cheapdate Sep 2013 #13
elleng Sep 2013 #26
DirkGently Sep 2013 #28
dotymed Sep 2013 #33
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #25
elleng Sep 2013 #27
gopiscrap Sep 2013 #29
ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #30

Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:38 PM

1. This makes sense

They are always planning to attack someone and Nuke them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:52 PM

2. "Had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa"

If this is humanitarian, then our objectives would be different.

Bombing Syria will solve nothing.

This all about oil and the 1%.

Americans have to stop this now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 11:32 AM

35. We'll be going into Africa soon enough

 

for the rare earth metals and other items great for electronics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:53 PM

3. Yes, Clark did his part to expose the PNAC plan

but this has nothing to do with what Obama is proposing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:38 PM

21. Agreed. PNAC's plans were concieved long before 9/11, and GWB was put in office to carry it out.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

PNAC was a think tank formed in 1997 and finally closed down in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

It has nothing to do with the current conflict, and Obama is not doing what PNAC scheme called to be done. First was Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

Some RWNJs thought we would take over Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Note Gary Bauer was part, along with John McCain.

A quick search of Bauer gave the results including the American Christian Zionists, of which Keyes, Haggee, Norris, Beck and Hal Lindsey and Falwell were listed.

Don't forget that Reagan had addressed Falwell's college, Liberty University and held the same views, or so it is said by Wikipedia.

That is not what Obama is made of and he has not followed their plan despite their calls for him to do so.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/gary-bauer

I wish all involved in the PNAC think tank were put in prison for what they did. Not holding my breath, though.

Clark was running against GWB when he said this, most likely. See EDIT below. He was an independent who decided that despite having worked with many Republicans, he was a Democrat. He then supported Obama in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Wesley_Clark#2004_presidential_campaign

NOW, let's read General Wes Clark's words THIS week on Obama and Syria:

Wesley Clark on Syria; he invokes Bill Clinton

by Max Brantley - Sep 2, 2013



http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/09/02/wesley-clark-on-syria

It quotes from this article:

Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo

...As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)...

The Kosovo campaign was also less tidily packaged at the time than it appears in retrospect. When the bombing began, NATO had not yet formulated its political conditions for halting the bombing. NATO nations hardened their views when the Serbs retaliated against the civilian population of Kosovo and neighboring Macedonia. These episodes are always fluid, but so long as your political coalition is well organized - and NATO was - objectives can be modified and clarified during the course of military action. Not every "I" has to be dotted or "t" crossed before initiating a strike...

Finally, Kosovo taught us that diplomacy can smooth over hostilities with nations that oppose your policy. At the outset of the Kosovo campaign, Russia pulled its liaison personnel out of NATO HQ, sent a representative into Belgrade, and belligerently threatened to send out its Black Sea fleet to interfere with NATO operations. Intensive diplomacy, including repeated visits to Moscow by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, eventually brought the Russians into co-leading a diplomatic mission that culminated in Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's acceptance of NATO conditions. Heated protests aren't insurmountable if there is persistent diplomacy before and after hostilities commence...

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/

Brantley goes on to say:

And, because after sleeping on it I'm still stunned by Republican Rep. Tim Griffin's sneering condescension on the issue, I'd like to repeat it in full here:

“It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”

Tim Griffin and other Republicans in Arkansas simply do not accept President Obama's legitimacy regardless of issue. It runs deeper than philosophical differences.


That is what it is, for them. Research shows the OP is incorrect and failed, with all due respect, to make the case that Obama is doing a Bush - Cheney PNAC action here.

EDIT: I found a dated video. This one is not, and is used as a smear by the channel rather than a honest appraisal of Clark's position today. It has been mentioned more than once here at DU, but it does NOT reflect his thinking on Obama or Syria in 2013.

This same video as is in the OP was posted in September of 2011, but the interview posted on the Democracy Now website on March 2, 2007.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:04 PM

4. Has NOTHING to do with the current proposed intervention due to Assad GASSING children/adults


Bush is GONE.

Obama is NOT Bush.

It is now 2013 NOT 2001.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:24 PM

5. Do you Honestly Believe that.

 

The scope of this plan has changed!? just because Potus has a 'D' next to his name!? look at how many times he has back peddles about issues he ran on. Open your eyes we can only hope to slow the train before the wreck. With the R it's 120 MPH, With a D it's 70 MPH. either way it's gonna hurt all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillyRibs (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:34 PM

6. Do you honestly believe that Obama is currently using some plan hatched in 2001?


That is absolutely NUTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:27 PM

14. This isn't a CT scheme

 

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:34 AM - Edit history (3)

but corruption dominates the agenda of Washington DC. The mechanism may be different than stereotypical CT fantasy schemes, but the results of the corruption make it feel like the CT'ers are correct in some ways - they're mostly wrong though.

President Obama may not directly care about the war-mongers that hatched the plan that General Wesley Clark mentions in his talk, but various special interests push their agendas in Washington DC. It is in the nature of most politicians to play nice with powerful lobbies. That is how they obtain their positions. Obama is no different.

Several powerful lobbies want war. The Israel lobby in the US wants Israel's most powerful neighbors weakened. The MIC and other war lovers will take any war they can get, so war with Israel's neighbors is what we get. It works the same way with other powerful lobbies in the US. It's all blatant corruption, and the politicians themselves have made it all legal.

Syria has long been one of the main targets of the war lovers. This isn't about the chemical attack. Almost all military aggressions committed by the US in its history have been based on lies. They didn't care about the rebels' recent chemical attack, and the US had been and is continuing to support them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

16. Obama is NOT stupid like Bush. Obama is not going approve an unnecessary intervention.


It is amazing to me that all of a sudden so many folks seem to think Obama has lost his brains and integrity - and must think that he is a push-over.

:eyeroll:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:42 PM

22. Obama increased US involvement in Afghanistan

 

and he tried to stay in Iraq. He also helped overthrow Qaddafi in Libya, and he has made many enemies in Yemen and Pakistan with his brutal drone attacks. An attack against Syria would be par for the course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:47 PM

23. Obama said BEFORE he became president that he was going to FIGHT the war in Afghanistan.


Did you miss that part of 'many' of his campaign speeches before he was elected?

And as far as Libya - that WAS a necessary intervention especially after Gaddifi announced he was going to wipe out a whole city and kill ten of thousands of folks.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:56 PM

24. Which is very foolish

 

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Staying in Iraq was foolish. His drone bombings are foolish and immoral. His support for the jihadists against Syria's secular government is a disaster for Syria.

Obama is already involved in Syria against its secular government, the very same government the war mongers have long dreamed about overthrowing. The alleged chemical attack is an excuse to get more directly involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:06 AM

31. No, and combined with his Horrible Advisors, including War-Criminal Brzezenski ..

 

and Wall-St gang, I rooted for Kucinich in the primary.

Sorry to hear about those who believed the Bull on Libya. Former Secular nation (religious tolerance, like Syria) with the highest living standard in the region, low interest loans to small businesses, a water pipeline almost complete that could have fed millions of Africans (undercutting the tool of US-"aid" to starving Africans). And a LOT of sweet-crude oil, which was sold to the benefit of the Libyan people all Scandinavian-like, instead of ONLY lining the pockets of a handful of Billionaires, like American Oil.

Yet Another War for Oil, and many bought it, because it was Obama in the WH instead of Cheney/Dubya.

Ever heard of the term "Left-Cover"??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:40 PM

36. They all (POTUS)have been squeezing

 

the poor and middle class since the 1980's. so is that crazy talk too!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillyRibs (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:57 PM

9. I think Obama was a plant.

He campaigned as left wing Democrat and governs as a left wing Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:01 PM

10. Better than Bush, by a long shot.

But' still below the ethical and moral standards of most Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

17. No, he and Clark are just pawns

lol.

You guys kill me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:37 PM

18. So, who in Washington aren't pawns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillyRibs (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:37 PM

19. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillyRibs (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 06:54 AM

34. Great response, BillyRibs

Someone people are blinded by the D!

This 'intervention' has PNAC and/or AIPAC written all over it

Common sense tells us that a nation and a POTUS that allow cuts to food stamps, meals on wheels, Headstart, etc at home , that does little to ameliorate the suffering of vulnerable people -- many of them children -- stateside is NOT going into Syria for HUMANITARIAN reasons!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #34)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:41 PM

37. Damn Straight!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:35 PM

7. If it was just about civilian casualties and humanitarian aid, why no rush to intervene in Sudan?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:11 PM

11. Because America is dependent on war now.

Find oil in Sudan, and sure, we'll attack.

Hey, you have to compare human lives to profits acquired.

Simple Math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:23 AM

32. Oil found in the Sudan 30 years ago caused the civil war. It was well known.

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Chevron found it in 1983 and left in 1984. The USA got nothing out of Sudan, but other nations have. Congress made it illegal to do business there. We still have sanctions in place.

Sudan: Oil Money Is Fueling Civil War

by Karl Vick - June 11th, 2001

...The situation has further stoked Western outrage over the Sudanese government's human rights record. While no American companies are involved -- U.S. law prohibits them from doing business in Sudan -- the involvement of Canadian and European firms in extracting Sudanese oil has prompted "disinvestment" campaigns like those directed against firms that did business with apartheid-era South Africa.

"These are war crimes," said Eric Reeves, a Smith College professor who works against companies doing business in Sudan.

The criticism has fallen hardest on Talisman Energy Inc., a Calgary-based firm that was little known outside Canada until it bought a 25 percent stake in Sudan's most promising oil field. The Muglad basin is classic geography for oil, a sedimentary plain exposed by two plates being pulled apart. Unfortunately, the same area roughly defines the boundary between Sudan's north and south.

Except on maps, the country's two halves have never become one. The Muslim Arabs of the arid north historically preyed on the Africans who live in the wetter south and practice Christianity or traditional beliefs. British colonialists actually separated the two. National independence in 1956 was quickly followed by a sporadic war for southern secession. And although the fighting was in abeyance when Chevron Corp., the U.S. oil company, sank wells north of Bentiu in 1978, the discovery of oil helped renew the conflict in 1983...

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=86

The people of the USA have stood firm and have frustrated American oil companies who want to get Sudanese oil:

Oil Companies Complicit in Sudan Civil War, report alleges

Posted: 2011/06/20

...The main impetus for settling the dispute has been pressure from Europe and the United States, because the 20-year civil war hampered their ability to extract the enormous oil reserves that lie predominantly under the border region. Southern Sudan produces over 80 percent of all the country’s oil, which contributes around 70 percent of total Sudanese exports. US oil companies felt that they have been hampered by Washington’s uncompromising stance on Sudan, and felt marginalised by other foreign oil companies that were working more closely with the Khartoum regime...

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=627199

The USA knows the oil is there and didn't go war to get it as alleged. Washington needs our votes to elect people strong enough to stand up to them, as some have. And they need to hear from us that we still care and don't believe in playing games with the lives of the people there.

More about the history of the Sudan and oil and the nations in charge of the oil business there that didn't stop what was going on:

Sudan: One Part Oil, Two Parts Religion Equals A Deadly Mixture

...Oil companies such as Canada’s Talisman Energy, Sweden’s Lundin Oil, Malaysia’s Petronas and China’s state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) are business partners of the government of Sudan...

China and Malaysia alone have over 60% ownership in the consortium Developing Sudanese oil. China provides diplomatic cover for Sudan via its seat on the UN Security Council Credit and a huge market. Sudan receives bridge loans from Malaysia to service its IMF Debt.


http://www.markswatson.com/sudoil.html

Role of Oil In Sudan

The US–backed 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) brought an end to the civil war in Sudan… but the threat of a return to conflict remains close because of the huge oil reserves, mostly located in the south, which fuels Sudan's economy.

Sudan's ruling National Congress Party has always denied there is a link between the CPA and oil. Recently the foreign minister of Sudan Ali Karti said the intention in signing the CPA was to end the war, and nothing more.

Khartoum has changed a lot since the war ended. Peace has boosted oil production to a half million barrels a day. The new prosperity is easily visible on the streets of the Sudanese capital. Skyscrapers are being built, new bridges constructed, fancy cars cruise the city, and foreign bank accounts are available and popular.

Hafiz Mohammed, an analyst based in Khartoum, thinks that oil revenue sharing is a key part of the CPA...

http://www.voanews.com/content/role-of-oil-in-sudan--112715444/157134.html

It's definitely not over. But all we could do was to sanction them. No one has invited us into Sudan.

Syrian groups have. I'd prefer Assad's trading partners to pressure him. Iran complained Assad used CW and object to anyone who uses CW. Assad may listen, as they are his sponsors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:45 PM

38. Because they have no.

 

PAC's handing out checks in DC!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:40 PM

8. Do you really believe there would be so much money, blood and time invested in destabilizing

the ME, East Asia and N Africa just to leave Iran alone? Imho, the unrest in Syria was grasped as a great opportunity to start what they've been after all along. Does anything in this picture seem odd to you?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:47 PM

39. This provocation move is called encirclement!

 

It was the tactic FDR and Churchill used on the Japanese pre WWII. It was also the move the French and Poles used on Germany at about the same time.

And the next Poster that calls me a NUBE! who has no knowledge of what's happening is getting the taste slapped out of their mouth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:14 PM

12. You are deluding yourself because you want to believe in Obama. Put belief aside

 

and judge them by their actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:29 PM

15. Actions like going to Congress

Actions like limiting the rhetoric to Chem weapons instead of regime change

Those kind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:38 PM

20. I am judging Obama by his actions. Obama was the main force behind the Libya intervention...


... it was limited and no boots on the ground - just like he SAID.

He said he would end the war in Iraq and he has.

He said he would end the war in Afghanistan and he is.

I have NO reason to not trust him regarding Syria.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:24 PM

13. It's about the nerve gas. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 10:08 PM

26. Right. Thanks, Tx4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 10:43 PM

28. Of course it has something do with it. That's obvious.

I'm sorry, but you'd have to be stupid to claim that the fact American power brokers wanting an invasion of Syria since before 9/11 is irrelevant to the present situation.

Once again, it's not all about Obama and whether or not he "is" Bush.

WE have wanted to interfere in Syria for a long time, for strategic reasons. It is impossible to sever those motivations from the various voices pushing for invasion now.

There is no possible way the push to attack Syria now is wholly unrelated to the desire to attack Syria then. Plenty of the same players, foreign and domestic, are still around, and their motives haven't changed.

The fact Obama is President does not impart a magical dose of good faith into American foreign policy. For one, he's not running it all, and for another, he's now subject to the same pressures and politics as those before him.

You can argue the chemical weapons "punishment bombing" theory is valid, if you want, but you can't straight-facedly claim it's the only possible motivation now that Obama is President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 04:48 AM

33. Oh, I thought "WE" (the corporate government and MIC)

used depleted uranium throughout "our war" against TERRORISTS in the M.E., and STILL DO.

You do not consider this chemical warfare??

Look at the pictures of the babies born during, after and today. from our use of these horrific weapons against humanity.

Obama is not bush. They are both corporate sociopaths though and should be prosecuted along with their corporate sponsors.

I love the idea that all politicians must wear jackets with the logo's from their corporate sponsors sewn on. Just like NASCAR.. boy howdy.

America does not have true capitalism just corporate vampires.

Lets try some Democratic Socialism...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:59 PM

25. Wesley Clark is also an adminstration spokesperson on the Syrian question.

He just recently appeared on Bloomberg TV promoting the administration's proposal for a limited strike.

So there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 10:09 PM

27. No, he isn't an administration spokesperson,

he speaks for himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 11:19 PM

29. OMG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:45 AM

30. From the 2007 interview by Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid

The Pentagon has plans on how to attack every country in the world. The plans for some countries get updated more frequently than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread