Counterglow Forums  

Go Back   Counterglow Forums > Site Issues > Archive > CounterPoint Archive

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21-04-2003, 14:39:53   #101
Sean
Rhubarb
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: God knows
Sigh. Look, we mostly agree, I was just saying that your ‘I think’ was incorrect, and that the British action was not UN authorized. It wasn’t a definitive statement, but it was still untrue
Sean is offline  
Old 21-04-2003, 14:56:54   #102
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Yes, looking it up: The UN had authorized UNAMSIL to watch the implementation of a peace accord in 1999, but that didn't go far. The UK troops went in independently in 2000.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 21-04-2003, 15:38:21   #103
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
Laz:

If I had to chose, I would go after Congo. More parallel interests can be settled with that one.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 21-04-2003, 15:49:03   #104
Lazarus and the Gimp
Howling at the moon
 
Lazarus and the Gimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The radioactive Somerset coast
Yes, I can understand that. However Burma badly needs sorting out, and soon.
Lazarus and the Gimp is offline  
Old 21-04-2003, 15:59:12   #105
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
You know, the more I look at the world situation, the more it resembles triage.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 03:02:20   #106
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Roland, hate is not rational.

Hate can be learned. And Hate evolves out of jealousy. Where do you get it is logically based?

Luckily, hate can also be unlearned, but that doesn't happen very often. You are more liable to just run out caring, then you are liable to unlearn hate.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 05:57:06   #107
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"Roland, hate is not rational."

Is that in reply to:

"Hatred usually has some reason, no matter how unrational."

"Hate can be learned. And Hate evolves out of jealousy."

What's this obsession with jealousy? If you hate the murderers of your family, are you jealous of them?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 05:59:11   #108
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
And trying to appease irrational hatred gets you?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 06:02:02   #109
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Oooooh, there's the naughty word again....
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 06:06:07   #110
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Go ahead, Dyl. Explain how effective Euros have been at ignoring the situation and hoping the Islamist fundies would go away. The Yanks tried it too, for that matter. Can't say I blame them for being a bit pissed the the biggest buildings in their biggest city went poof one day. I wonder what the reaction in Europe will be when it is the Bundesbank.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 06:13:46   #111
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Ah yes, we've been ignoring it because we haven't invaded some arab country. But your rightwing warmongering will solve everything. Just kill 1 billion people to be sure.

"I wonder what the reaction in Europe will be when it is the Bundesbank."

The Tories will have a celebration.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 06:17:24   #112
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Egypt 1950's.

Algeria until the 70's, or was it 80's?

How do you treat the Turks?

GB, France, and many others right there in the thick of it in Kuwait.

How many involved in Afghanistan?

Stop peddling shit, Dyl. It ain't just the Yanks, and it ain't just their interests at stake.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 06:28:55   #113
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Egypt 1950s - yes, Nasser was an islamist.

The Algerian war ended in 1962.

The Turks have an association agreement with the EU that puts them in much better position than NAFTA ever would for Mexico.

Cut that crap, dumbwipe.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 06:50:53   #114
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Dumbwipe?

Well, Dyl, sorry if you don't like the light turned on Europe, but your asses are far from lilly white. Next we should look Eastward in Europe, that would be good.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:24:02   #115
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Congratulation for missing the subject again.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:25:51   #116
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Dyl, do you honestly believe that all this shit is just about the Yanks and Israel?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:27:37   #117
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
It's always funny how you read things that aren't there.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:28:41   #118
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
It's always funny how you ignore whole pieces of the puzzle.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:34:36   #119
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Says the guy who thinks a few bombs can solve everything.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:35:32   #120
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Says the guy who thinks if we all ignore it, it will go away.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:48:34   #121
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
I've never said that, but why would you bother. Of course the bombing statement is exaggerated, but I fear not by much. Do you have anything else to offer apart from killing muslims thinking "That'll tech'em"?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 07:59:41   #122
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Do you have anything to offer aside from whatever the Yanks do is the wrong thing?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 08:18:52   #123
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Nice echo.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 08:27:20   #124
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Frustrating, ain't it?

G'night.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 08:33:30   #125
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Not frustrating, you gave me ample opportunity of getting used to it.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 22-04-2003, 20:51:38   #126
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Sorry Roland. I misread your post. I thought you had said that "Hatred usually has some reason, no matter how rational."

You have more then them. That's enough of a reason. You don't have to worry about what they worry about. That's enough of a reason. You are alive. That's enough of a reason.

Hatred usually does *not* have a reason. It usually has a rationalization, but then, everything humans do usually has some rationalization. That does not mean that it has a reason. A reason is a motivation. A rationalization is just an excuse, self-justification. Very different items, logically, philosophically, and semantically.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 05:44:50   #127
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Just that Kim's regime will seek to play that game, too.
This is the wrong way to look at it. If (big if) we were engaged in a war with NK, we (and they) would choose to use various strategies based on their efficacy. Not on some childish tit for tat rationale. Saddam didn't drop bombs on the White House because he couldn't. If we could have put a bullet in Hitler in 1942, we would have done so...
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 05:54:10   #128
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
DS: The default setting is neutral. There usually is a cause, even if the rationalization goes into another direction.

"You have more then them. That's enough of a reason. You don't have to worry about what they worry about. That's enough of a reason. You are alive. That's enough of a reason."

That'll leave 5 billion people to hate us in the West. Also, jealousy does not necessarily translate into hatred.

GP: I don't disagree with that - what is "the wrong way to look at it"?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 07:28:49   #129
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
It is wrong to think that they will determine their strategy as a mirror image or as a "do the same thing" type of response. If it makes sense for them to go after our command and control (i.e. kill the President) than they will. It doesn't really matter what we do. What matters is how good our secruity is. How much ability they have to project power and how robust our systems are in the event of a fatality to the PResident.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 07:41:55   #130
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
I think they will try to retaliate tit-for-tat, if just for symbolic value. Just assassins instead of cruise misslies.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:05:25   #131
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Well, than they are morons. 1. Cause they can't do what we can do. 2. Cause damage to our President would have less efficacy than us taking down a dictator. 3. If it's a decent strategy, do it regardless.

Anyway, would you avoid going after the head of the snake for that kind of reason?
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:08:56   #132
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
You're looking at this from a purely military perspective, I'm looking at this from a political perspective. Gives different results.

Murdering heads of state is a problematic strategy. I doubt it's that effective, and you lose the claim to the other side to play by the rules.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:10:07   #133
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Here is a story which touches lightly on the issue of our approach to taking Baghdad. (i.e. eschewing the "we have to refight Stalingrad" idea and instead designing rather bold strokes to key points using our superior intelligence and ability to move.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr19.html

Quote:
It was a pretty ambitious plan to come in with one brigade and take the whole city," said Col. David Perkins, the 2nd Brigade commander.

Instead of the traditional method of moving in gradually to clear and secure terrain as they went, Perkins took an unorthodox approach. He sent his two tank units -- the 1st and 4th battalions of the 64th Armored Regiment -- racing into the heart of Baghdad to seize key installations, then followed up with mechanized infantry, the 3rd Battalion, to occupy the intersections and secure his supply route.



Last edited by GP; 23-04-2003 at 08:17:43.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:14:26   #134
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
You're looking at this from a purely military perspective, I'm looking at this from a political perspective. Gives different results.

Murdering heads of state is a problematic strategy. I doubt it's that effective, and you lose the claim to the other side to play by the rules.
1. I don't know of any rule that says that nations at war can't target the head of state.

2. Churchill said after WW2 that he would have happily authorized an assasination of Hitler if he thought it would likely be effective.

3. The more important point than "doing the dastardlyt deed of going after the head of the country" is which side you favor. I would favor England in WW2 over Germany. It wouldn't matter a fig to me if the Englanders assisanated Hitler. (And conversely, I would fight the Japanese for Pearl Harbor. And an attempt on Roosevelt, couldn't make me any more down on them.)
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:17:09   #135
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"the big difference was that we had armor"

And the other guys rocket propelled grenades. I don't see the superior intelligence in that fight, and the ability to move around depended on armor, did it not.

I'm just puzzled that the Iraqis were really that worn out that they had no tanks or serious anti-tank weapons. Seems the black market for arms isn't what it used to be...
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:27:10   #136
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"the big difference was that we had armor"

And the other guys rocket propelled grenades. I don't see the superior intelligence in that fight, and the ability to move around depended on armor, did it not.

I'm just puzzled that the Iraqis were really that worn out that they had no tanks or serious anti-tank weapons. Seems the black market for arms isn't what it used to be...
Do you doubt that we had superior intelligence? That we knew a lot more about their positions than the converse? Sorry that the article doesn't detail the intel that went into the planning. You'll have to consider that by extrapolation.


It is obviously not an essay on GP's views. But it shows at least a glimpse of a different mindset from the "we're going to fight it out house to house....there's no other way unless we siege or level the city". Take it as a small aenecdote. You can find more stuff too if you want to read on current doctrine.

The ability to move troops with speed is not so much an issue of transpportation technology. But of responsiveness, training, tactcs, and intel to know where to concentrate forces (where to be strong and where to leave gaps.)

That said, armor (and BRadlees are clearly a speed technology. Particularly in how they combine speed and protection. (Yes, you could drive as fast in a car. Or approach cautiusly using terrain. But the armor lets you move a lot faster with impunity.)

Agreed that the superior firepower of the tanks is also a big help. I'm not trying to claim a monopoly on lessons learned. Just want to show you someone other than me, making some similar points.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:31:32   #137
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"the big difference was that we had armor"

And the other guys rocket propelled grenades. I don't see the superior intelligence in that fight, and the ability to move around depended on armor, did it not.

I'm just puzzled that the Iraqis were really that worn out that they had no tanks or serious anti-tank weapons. Seems the black market for arms isn't what it used to be...
Huge quantities of unused armaments have been found. (Some of them French-made and dated 2002.) Lack of armaments was not the problem. Lack of quality. Lack of training and lack of will were the issues. Maybe they didn't want to fight for Saddam.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:35:52   #138
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"Do you doubt that we had superior intelligence?"

Yes. In your story, they faced an enemy they didn't expect, and that enemy managed to reinforce, move around etc. Just that they did not have the weapons to make a dent.

The strategy to cut through rather than move from house to house was applied eg in Stalingrad by the Soviets. Their problem was that they couldn't do it until very late. Now if the Iraqis had been fighting this with serious ant-tank weapons, what would have happened to that bold move into Baghdad? Something different from the Russians in Grosny?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:36:40   #139
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"Some of them French-made and dated 2002"

Like what? Hunting rifles?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:39:26   #140
maroule
Intermittent du spectacle
 
maroule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by GP
Huge quantities of unused armaments have been found. (Some of them French-made and dated 2002.)
links, please, and to some reliable info sources (not Fox)
maroule is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 08:45:33   #141
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"Lack of armaments was not the problem."

They drive explosives-loaded trucks against tanks, and you say they do not lack armament, but commitment.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 16:59:10   #142
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"Lack of armaments was not the problem."

They drive explosives-loaded trucks against tanks, and you say they do not lack armament, but commitment.
There have been several stories about large amounts of abondoned armaments. The deficit was in quality. But maybe I'm quibbling here.

And yes...they did lack commitment. Get the idea out of your head that any statistical amount of them had the will, discipline, commitment, etc. of the Coalition forces.

FYI: several reports have come to light showing that some of the suicide attacks were from unwilling persons. (Does this really surprise you?)

Last edited by GP; 23-04-2003 at 17:04:04.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 17:02:23   #143
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by maroule
links, please, and to some reliable info sources (not Fox)
1. Let me go look.

2. Fox is as trustworthy as Reuters, etc. They both had some silly analysis and biases. And both had mistakes and valid reporting. It is just part of the "too cool" pseudosophistication to dump on Fox. If you want to dump on a network, dump on CNN for their craven decision to slant the news coming out of Bagdhad for several years. (cf. the op-ed peice by Robert Jordan, CNN Bagdhad cheif for several years in the 90s).
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 17:06:47   #144
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"Do you doubt that we had superior intelligence?"

Yes. In your story, they faced an enemy they didn't expect, and that enemy managed to reinforce, move around etc. Just that they did not have the weapons to make a dent.

The strategy to cut through rather than move from house to house was applied eg in Stalingrad by the Soviets. Their problem was that they couldn't do it until very late. Now if the Iraqis had been fighting this with serious ant-tank weapons, what would have happened to that bold move into Baghdad? Something different from the Russians in Grosny?
1. If pigs had wings, they could fly Roland.

2. I'm not asking just about this story. I'm asking who you think had a better "picture" of the overall battle-space in terms of knowing where forces were. Plenty of info has come to light showing that iraq had very poor knowledge of where their units were.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 17:50:29   #145
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Mar,

I think this is the story that I was thinking of when I made the made in France comment:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/899533.asp

Quote:
LT. GREG HOLMES, a tactical intelligence officer with the Third Infantry Division, told NEWSWEEK that U.S. forces discovered 51 Roland-2 missiles, made by a partnership of French and German arms manufacturers, in two military compounds at Baghdad International Airport. One of the missiles he examined was labeled 05-11 KND 2002, which he took to mean that the missile was manufactured last year. The charred remains of a more modern Roland-3 launcher was found just down the road from the arms cache. According to a mortar specialist with the same unit, radios used by many Iraqi military trucks brandished MADE IN FRANCE labels and looked brand new. RPG night sights stamped with the number 2002 and French labels also turned up. And a new Nissan pickup truck driven by a surrendering Iraqi officer was manufactured in France as well.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 17:55:53   #146
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"Some of them French-made and dated 2002"

Like what? Hunting rifles?
See the link. I have no idea what a Roland missile is--sounds deadly.

Last edited by GP; 23-04-2003 at 18:04:23.
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 18:04:49   #147
Venom
Look out behind you!
 
Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rudolph's stable
SAM missle.
__________________
TO MY BALLS!!!!!
or
TO LazyView!!!!

Venom is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 18:07:06   #148
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Venom
SAM missle.
You repeated "missile". It's already in the acronym. (Insert FFZ geek picture.)
GP is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 21:22:03   #149
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
I really doubt they got a high-profile system like, excuse me, Roland. If they had it the question is again, why didn't they us e it?

As for Fox - do you say it's as crappy as CNN? No issue there.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 23-04-2003, 21:41:25   #150
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
They have the Roland. Well, had it. Lots of footage. Heck, lots of paperwork as well, Roland.

They didn't use it because they didn't : a) want to, b) know how to, c) were scared to try.

Or do you mean, you doubt they could afford such a powerful weapons system as yourself? OWN GOAL! They didn't use you because you were already deployed.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
 
Forum Jump

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:00:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Counterglow 2001-2012. All rights reserved.