Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46

Thread: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,402

    Default Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    May 21, 2010
    Clinton Condemns Attack on S. Korean Warship
    By MARK LANDLER

    TOKYO — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton harshly condemned North Korea on Friday for a deadly torpedo attack on a South Korean Navy warship last March, and promised to marshal an international response in the coming week with Japan, China and other countries.

    “I think it is important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences,” she said after meeting here with the Japanese foreign minister, Katsuya Okada. “We cannot allow this attack on South Korea to go unanswered by the international community.”

    Mrs. Clinton declined to lay out the potential options for a response, saying that would be premature. But she left little doubt that the United States would undertake an intensive diplomatic effort to craft a response to the sinking of the Cheonan, which killed 46 sailors and was one of the biggest military provocations on the Korean Peninsula since the Korean War.

    Among the options being considered by South Korean and American officials is a United Nations Security Council resolution, and joint naval exercises with South Korea that could include anti-submarine warfare operations. South Korea may also cut off its remaining trade with the North.

    “Let me be clear: this will not, and cannot be, business as usual,” Mrs. Clinton said, speaking in solemn tones. “There must be an international, not just a regional, but an international response.”

    The mounting tensions on the Korean peninsula have roiled what had been planned as three days of economic and security talks between China and the United States next week in Beijing.

    Now, those discussions are likely to be dominated by how far the United States can push China to support an international move against North Korea. The Chinese government reacted to the reports of Pyongyang’s involvement with extreme skepticism, angering many people in South Korea.

    But Mrs. Clinton said South Korea’s investigation, which was aided by the United States and other countries, was thorough, scientific, and the evidence was “overwhelming and condemning.”

    Both she and Mr. Okada said the tension underlined the importance of the American-Japanese alliance, and the presence of American troops on Japanese soil. But the two governments have not yet resolved a lengthy dispute over the relocation of a Marine base on the island of Okinawa.

    Negotiations were continuing, Mr. Okada said, and the Japanese government was sticking to its timetable of resolving the matter by the end of the month. Mrs. Clinton said the United States sought a solution that was “operationally viable and politically sustainable.”

    On Sunday, Mrs. Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner are jointly leading a delegation which will number nearly 200 policy-makers and advisers, one of the largest groups of American officials ever to travel to a foreign capital for a single set of meetings.

    On the agenda: trying to balance the economic relationship between China and the United States, breaking down trade and investment barriers, and moving China toward a market-driven exchange rate.

    But despite rising political pressure at home, administration officials said that at these meetings, the United States does not plan to push Beijing strenuously to loosen its policy of pegging its currency to the dollar. And it does not expect China to take any action on the currency until at least next month, because Beijing is loath at appearing to yield to outside pressure.

    The administration sought to put a good face on Europe’s troubles, suggesting they played into one of the key American themes for the meeting: encouraging the Chinese to ramp up domestic consumption, so that they did not rely so heavily on exports to either Europe or the United States.

    “The Greek crisis underlines the U.S. argument about the need for more balanced global growth,” Mr. Geithner said in an interview. “It makes the case very strongly because it is about Europe as well as China. It makes our interests in balanced growth even more aligned.”

    The Greek crisis has dragged down the euro, which complicates a related American priority: prodding China to loosen its peg, which economists say keeps its currency, the renminbi, at an artificially depressed level. The United States wants China to allow the currency to rise closer to market levels, calculating that this would make American goods more competitive.

    The renminbi has already risen sharply against the beleaguered euro, however, making Chinese goods more costly in Europe. And this, analysts say, could make Chinese officials more resistant to taking any steps that would allow it to rise against the dollar.

    Moreover, if the Greek crisis spreads to Spain, Portugal, or other European countries, it could slow Europe’s overall economic growth and further dampen demand for Chinese exports.

    The Obama administration delayed filing a report with Congress, scheduled for mid-April, which could have labeled China as a country that manipulates its currency. The administration’s policy, officials said, is to give Beijing the space it needs to make the decision by itself.

    Beijing has signaled privately to Washington that it may begin loosen its currency policy in the run-up to a meeting in June of the Group of 20 industrialized and major emerging economies, officials said.

    “While we don’t know when China is going to move, we remain confident that they’re going to determine that it’s in their interest to move to a more market-determined exchange rate,” said David Loevinger, the senior coordinator for China affairs at the Treasury Department.

    NY Times
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 05-21-2010 at 06:14 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    This will be interesting,hard to guess which way things will go. Well, maybe N.K. will be offered an aid package if they agree to play nice..

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,266

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Well, maybe N.K. will be offered an aid package if they agree to play nice..
    Well, history supports the view that NK's bad behaviour is invariably rewarded by stupid deals by countries which should know better (notably the US) which favour NK and which NK doesn't honour, essentially because NK is a standover / protection merchant which gets its laughs from ripping off countries which take its puny threats seriously.

    I rather like the idea of telling NK: Put one foot out of line just once more and we'll turn you into an expanse of glazed sand that can be seen with the naked eye from the moon and that noboby can use for a few thousand years, with the first strikes landing right on all of Dear F ***ing Leader's palaces and anywhere else the c*** might be hiding with his cronies .

    Of course, that is unfair and brutal to the masses in NK.

    Who, of course, are doing a lot better eating grass under Dear F ***ing Leader, the hereditary leader of a people's republic that is not unfair and not brutal to the happy masses under its control.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    I'll sell futures in unusable land masses, then sell commodities of green glass to the Coca-cola bottlers in Asia. Then employ any survivors to process the glass for shipping. I'll pay them 3 bowls of chicken and rice a day, and 3 changes of burlap per week. Which, oddly enough will triple their current standard of living, and life expectancy.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,266

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Seoul steps up pressure on North Korea

    * From: The Australian
    * May 24, 2010 12:00AM


    SOUTH Korea and the US plan to step up psychological warfare against the regime of Kim Jong-il in retaliation for North Korea's torpedo attack on a warship.

    The plans include using mobile phone, MP3 and internet technology to spread dissident messages as well as Cold War tactics such as leaflets sent into North Korea by balloons and radio broadcasts, South Korean reports said yesterday.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said North Korea would have to pay a price for its covert torpedo attack on the night of March 26 against the Cheonan, a South Korean frigate, which sank with the loss of 46 sailors.

    She was meeting Chinese leaders in Beijing last night to stress that China cannot shield its protege from the consequences of its erratic actions.

    For the first time in years, the US and the South Koreans seem to be in agreement that Mr Kim must be punished.

    With military options off the table, officials are looking at clandestine measures and financial sanctions to pressure the dictatorship in Pyongyang.

    Defectors and refugees provide valuable resources for any campaign, while the spread of mobile phones and electronic equipment smuggled across the North Korean border with China makes it possible to exchange information.

    North Korea has denied sinking the ship, threatened war and lately demanded that Seoul accept a delegation of its own to investigate.

    The anger in South Korea has been deepened by details of how a midget submarine stalked the Cheonan.

    Officials identified the submarine as a new class of vessel with night vision equipment, hi-tech systems and a unique design to make it a "stealth" weapon of naval war.

    Mrs Clinton was expected to seek Beijing's co-operation in backing a response against North Korea, which relies heavily on trade and diplomatic support from its neighbour and closest ally China.

    Speaking yesterday in Shanghai, Mrs Clinton emphasised the importance of China-US ties.

    "Virtually every major challenge that we face in the world requires China and the United States to work together," she said.

    However, the two sides were expected to take up contentious trade and investment issues ranging from US calls for reform of the yuan currency to recent tit-for-tat punitive trade actions.

    During a visit to a Boeing aircraft maintenance site in Shanghai yesterday, Mrs Clinton called for trade reform in China.

    "For trade to work in any economy and for it to produce the benefits we know it can, there must be a level playing field where domestic and international companies can compete freely and openly," she said.

    She and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will today open two days of talks with Dai Bingguo, a member of China's State Council, and State Councillor Wang Qishan under the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the highest-level bilateral forum.

    Mrs Clinton, who visited Expo yesterday, attended a state dinner hosted by Mr Dai last night.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225870259878

    Maybe it's just the usual chesting by NK trying to get another concession from the West (notably US) after reneging on and wasting the dollars from its last bit of blackmail about develping nuclear weapons.

    Or maybe it's going to be a long overdue war with those feral f uckwits in NK. Which could see us plunge into WWIII if China insists on supporting those feral f uckwits.

    The world would be a much less dangerous place if we got rid of some of the major causes of conflict by rabid regimes. It depends upon which side you're on, but for me that would include North Korea, Israel, Syria, and Iran, with some lesser candidates such as Pakistan.

    But people there would say that the conflicts are caused by the US and Britain, among others.

    Which might be true, as the US and Britain and their allies do not have clean hands on many things. Except I don't recall endless missions by North Korea, Israel, Syria and Iran to the US or Britain or anywhere else trying to resolve conflicts outside their own backyards. Actually, I don't recall any of those feral f uckwits doing anything to resolve conflicts in their own backyards, not least because they're all flat out trying to make them worse while giving the finger to the rest of the world.

    As the predominantly US missions to try to resolve conflicts in those areas never bear fruit, and haven't for at least half a century in the case of North Korea and Israel (which is longer than it takes for the slow growing olive tree, from which an olive branch comes to be offered in peace, to reach maturity), I don't have a problem with the US and its allies telling these troublesome international minnows to get their act together and behave like responsible international citizens or face annihilation. And then, if they persist with their feral conduct, do it.

    Of course, that shows to other peaceniks (of whom I am by preference one) what a chauvanistic thug and bully I am. But I say that the only way to deal with bullies and thugs is to do it in the only way they understand, which is to belt the living f uck out of them and, after they leave hospital, have a discussion about future relations.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 05-25-2010 at 08:49 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    The Sabre rattling continues, NK 's dear dimwit rails on the likelihood of war, and has cut diplomatic ties to the South. The South, has ended all but some humanitarian aid to dear dimwit land. Hillary Clinton continues her attempts to appear leader like.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Well, history supports the view that NK's bad behaviour is invariably rewarded by stupid deals by countries which should know better (notably the US) which favour NK and which NK doesn't honour, essentially because NK is a standover / protection merchant which gets its laughs from ripping off countries which take its puny threats seriously.

    I rather like the idea of telling NK: Put one foot out of line just once more and we'll turn you into an expanse of glazed sand that can be seen with the naked eye from the moon and that noboby can use for a few thousand years, with the first strikes landing right on all of Dear F ***ing Leader's palaces and anywhere else the c*** might be hiding with his cronies .

    Of course, that is unfair and brutal to the masses in NK.

    Who, of course, are doing a lot better eating grass under Dear F ***ing Leader, the hereditary leader of a people's republic that is not unfair and not brutal to the happy masses under its control.
    I seriously doubt they would actually do something like this, remember this isn't Iraq. This country actually has weapon of mass destruction. I dont think South Korea would want to see their city vaporized as a result.
    If you are a P-51D pilot, you are going down soon
    The Axis Project



    Great game: www.cybernations.net

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    You are assuming they actually have a viable weapon, and are able to deliver it. Even dear dimwit understands that if they use such things on the South, that something wicked will their way come.(doesnt even need to be nuclear).And China will not want that happening in their back garden.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    858

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Of course it's always plausible that the North will go to war out of desperation. It is currently believed that the North is about to hit a famine that will be bigger than the one several years ago when they lost 2 million. Add into the mix that recent economic reforms wiped out the savings of many North Koreans and that Chinese aid is diminshing with a leader not too far from death and lunancy and you may be left with such a desperate situtation that they might just go for broke and attack the south.

    Any North Korean attack could possibly mirror 1950, good intial success but then halted once the west got its act together. The North may just be relying on their intial assualt to wrong foot S. Korea, USA et al and then sue for peace on beneficial terms. Unlikely, I grant you but they could just be desperate enough to go for it.
    "There is no country on the face of the earth to which the principle of citizen-soldiership is so well adapted as our own, for the freedom possessed by Britons is of so general and real a character as to cause the humblest in the land to feel deeply the neccessity of preserving the safety and independence of the nation of which he is a part"

    The Volunteer's book of facts 1863

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,266

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Quote Originally Posted by student-scaley View Post
    Of course it's always plausible that the North will go to war out of desperation. It is currently believed that the North is about to hit a famine that will be bigger than the one several years ago when they lost 2 million. Add into the mix that recent economic reforms wiped out the savings of many North Koreans and that Chinese aid is diminshing with a leader not too far from death and lunancy and you may be left with such a desperate situtation that they might just go for broke and attack the south.

    Any North Korean attack could possibly mirror 1950, good intial success but then halted once the west got its act together. The North may just be relying on their intial assualt to wrong foot S. Korea, USA et al and then sue for peace on beneficial terms. Unlikely, I grant you but they could just be desperate enough to go for it.
    All entirely possible. Particularly the bit about starting it up and then suing for peace on beneficial terms, which conforms with NK's usual threats and posturing to win concessions.

    Then again, maybe the main powers involved could decide that it would be better for everyone if the current regime was wiped out, and a good part of its military as well.

    But the piece of the jigsaw that doesn't fit at the moment is: Where is the benefit to NK in torpedoing a SK warship?

    Was it just intended to be another demonstration that NK is unpredictable and aggressive? Except that that is usually designed to win concessions from the West? Why would anyone want to give concessions to stop further attacks, instead of just attacking the source of the problem?
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    You are assuming they actually have a viable weapon, and are able to deliver it. Even dear dimwit understands that if they use such things on the South, that something wicked will their way come.(doesnt even need to be nuclear).And China will not want that happening in their back garden.
    You have a great point but you are being too rational for North Korean leadership. Yes, North Korea is going to get it after they attack S.Korea with the nuclear weapon, but that doesnt change the fact a few cities of South Korea will be vaporized and that is exactly what they do not want.

    Even they really do not have the nuclear weapon, do you want to risk it as a responsible South Korean government?
    If you are a P-51D pilot, you are going down soon
    The Axis Project



    Great game: www.cybernations.net

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    858

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    All entirely possible. Particularly the bit about starting it up and then suing for peace on beneficial terms, which conforms with NK's usual threats and posturing to win concessions.

    Then again, maybe the main powers involved could decide that it would be better for everyone if the current regime was wiped out, and a good part of its military as well.

    But the piece of the jigsaw that doesn't fit at the moment is: Where is the benefit to NK in torpedoing a SK warship?

    Was it just intended to be another demonstration that NK is unpredictable and aggressive? Except that that is usually designed to win concessions from the West? Why would anyone want to give concessions to stop further attacks, instead of just attacking the source of the problem?
    Agreed it does seem strange. If they were going to start the war off again why would you give the opposition a heads up? This leads me to several thoughts;
    I)It was a balls up. Some captain or admiral starting believing their own propaganda about the invicibility of their 'Glorious Red Armed Forces' and decided to have a pop confident that it would earn them a promotion or more importantly a meal!
    II)They're rattling the sabre very furiously in an order to get greater handouts. The fact is things are desperate in North Korea and maybe they're upping their game to get a bit more out of the west.
    III)They've totally lost the plot and what we're witnessing is the opening scenes of North Korea's Gotterdamerung. The Korean 'Der Untergang' is here!
    IV)It was an accident, they only meant to fire a torpedo in their generally direction in order to stir things up as per usual and in this case the torpedo didn't follow the plan.

    Those are some of the scenarios I can think of, I doubt any of us will know for certain anytime soon.
    "There is no country on the face of the earth to which the principle of citizen-soldiership is so well adapted as our own, for the freedom possessed by Britons is of so general and real a character as to cause the humblest in the land to feel deeply the neccessity of preserving the safety and independence of the nation of which he is a part"

    The Volunteer's book of facts 1863

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,266

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Quote Originally Posted by student-scaley View Post
    Agreed it does seem strange. If they were going to start the war off again why would you give the opposition a heads up? This leads me to several thoughts;
    I)It was a balls up. Some captain or admiral starting believing their own propaganda about the invicibility of their 'Glorious Red Armed Forces' and decided to have a pop confident that it would earn them a promotion or more importantly a meal!
    II)They're rattling the sabre very furiously in an order to get greater handouts. The fact is things are desperate in North Korea and maybe they're upping their game to get a bit more out of the west.
    III)They've totally lost the plot and what we're witnessing is the opening scenes of North Korea's Gotterdamerung. The Korean 'Der Untergang' is here!
    IV)It was an accident, they only meant to fire a torpedo in their generally direction in order to stir things up as per usual and in this case the torpedo didn't follow the plan.

    Those are some of the scenarios I can think of, I doubt any of us will know for certain anytime soon.
    Another possibility, for conspiracy theorists, is that it is a frame-up by SK, but that makes sense only if SK has decided to risk war with NK, which in turn requires the prosperous SK to be even more suicidal than the desperate NK as well as requiring US and other support of SK and Chinese abandonment of NK. None of which seems likely, so it still comes back to NK being the initiator, for whatever reason or lack of reason.

    SK's invitation to Russia and China to send teams to check the evidence of NK's torpedo suggests that SK is fully confident that it is a NK torpedo.

    Russia will soon send a team of experts to South Korea to look into the cause of the sinking of a South Korean warship, a senior U.S. State Department official said Wednesday in Washington.

    "Russia is intending to send a team to South Korea," Yonhap News quoted an official as saying. "Obviously, Russia will have to satisfy itself as to the findings of the investigation."

    Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said earlier in the day that Seoul has asked both Beijing and Moscow to dispatch their own teams for a transparent examination of the outcome of the probe of the Cheonan, which sank along the western sea border with North Korea, killing 46 sailors.

    China, a veto power within the U.N. Security Council, has not yet sent a team to examine the findings, reached by an international team from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden. The report cites a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine.

    North Korea denies involvement and threatens all-out war if punished or sanctioned.
    President Lee said Monday that his government will bring the case to the Security Council, suspend inter-Korean economic ties and bolster national defense.

    The Russian development comes a day after President Dmitry Medvedev placed a phone call to Lee to discuss the sinking of the Cheonan.

    Medvedev at the time pledged to cooperate closely with South Korea on that matter, but also expressed hope for "restraint" and prevention of "any further escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula."
    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...113_66592.html

    The next question is: If Russia, which shares a little border with NK, wants to satisfy itself of the international team's findings, why does Russia want to do that and what does Russia contemplate following from confirmation, or rejection, of those findings?
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,266

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    Russia will soon send a team of experts to South Korea to look into the cause of the sinking of a South Korean warship, a senior U.S. State Department official said Wednesday in Washington.

    "Russia is intending to send a team to South Korea," Yonhap News quoted an official as saying. "Obviously, Russia will have to satisfy itself as to the findings of the investigation."

    Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said earlier in the day that Seoul has asked both Beijing and Moscow to dispatch their own teams for a transparent examination of the outcome of the probe of the Cheonan, which sank along the western sea border with North Korea, killing 46 sailors.

    China, a veto power within the U.N. Security Council, has not yet sent a team to examine the findings, reached by an international team from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden. The report cites a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine.

    North Korea denies involvement and threatens all-out war if punished or sanctioned.

    President Lee said Monday that his government will bring the case to the Security Council, suspend inter-Korean economic ties and bolster national defense.

    The Russian development comes a day after President Dmitry Medvedev placed a phone call to Lee to discuss the sinking of the Cheonan.

    Medvedev at the time pledged to cooperate closely with South Korea on that matter, but also expressed hope for "restraint" and prevention of "any further escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula."
    I missed the significance of the bold sentence in various news reports.

    It all makes sense if NK, which nobody has given a stuff about since it defaulted on its agreement to abandon its nuclear program and despite it making noises and maybe taking steps to resume that program, decides that it has to up the ante to get attention so it decides to sink a small SK ship to provoke SK and then threaten the worst consequence of all out war if there is any adverse consequence for NK.

    This fits perfectly with prior NK behaviour in creating a threat and then agreeing to withdraw it in return for concessions.

    Which fits with student-scaley's second option:

    II)They're rattling the sabre very furiously in an order to get greater handouts. The fact is things are desperate in North Korea and maybe they're upping their game to get a bit more out of the west.
    If so, that's all the more reason to ignore these blackmailing / protection racket bastards and leave them to piss or get off the pot, and finally live with the consequences.

    I despise standover merchants of any type, and giving in to them always gets you more of the same until you finally wake up that the only way to deal with them is to stand up to them and belt the **** out of them so hard that they know never to challenge you again.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 05-28-2010 at 08:57 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    858

    Default Re: Tensions in Korea: S. Korean Warship Sunk

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...c/10181527.stm

    Oh dear, China has pretty much told North Korea 'you're own your own' which pretty much put the brakes on any North Korean aggression, unless the North really do have a deathwish (see point III the North Korean Gotterdamerung).
    "There is no country on the face of the earth to which the principle of citizen-soldiership is so well adapted as our own, for the freedom possessed by Britons is of so general and real a character as to cause the humblest in the land to feel deeply the neccessity of preserving the safety and independence of the nation of which he is a part"

    The Volunteer's book of facts 1863

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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