Gender: male Member Since: July 14, 2006 Last Signed In: March 15, 2008 Profile Views: 26807 Blog Views: 13713 Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent A "Christian Nation" -- Impossible Even By Religious Right's Criteria The Only Gay Marriage Argument You'll Ever Need My Thoughts on the In God We Trust Scare A Spooky (And True) Story of Precognition World's 3rd Richest Man Says Taxes on the Rich Are Too Low New Right's War on the Constitution: The Under-Reported Truth Religious Right Group's Belief in Religious Freedom Does Not Extend to Others Take The Time To Fight Phishing Creationist Betrays True Motives (Again) July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 News, views, and professional iconoclasm from the green side of libertarianism. About the graphic: Created by Yours Truly using Ray Dream Studio. - Take The Time To Fight Phishing
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Iraq War hurting global war on terror, intelligence agency says
What has come over me? Another war-related post:
. According to the National Intelligence Council, the U.S.-led war in Iraq is inspiring new converts to terrorist forms of Islam faster than our armed forces can root them out. . A Washington Post story begins here: . http://www.washingtonpost.c... "The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded. "A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document." 99 comments from 11 users
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 24, 2006 at 10:34 AM
There is no global war on terror, it is the threat of terror sold to us by the Bush administration that is the danger. In other previous war against ideologies we have engaged in all have resulted in nothing gained and this one will end the same as well, if indeed it ever existed.
If it is a war, have congress declare war and start the draft and get everyone involved, that will never happen because than the political value will be lost. You can keep America safe by just being strong and having good intelligence and using that intelligence as needed for protection, not politics. That , however, is too much to expect we have a professional military that has become an autonomous entity and as there are no conscripts questions from the civilian peanut gallery are ignored except at budget time when the propaganda machine goes into full force. No, there is no war on terror, there is ,however, a war to create terror and terrorists as has hppened in the last five years. But it is good politics as the ruling party is again set to win another election on the basis of fear, and they will take that one to the bank! posted by
anonymous
on Sep 24, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Go back under ther bed where Bush likes to keep you mucus and read your latest editions of the Washington Times and the Weekly standard. Ever,time I hear a conservative or Bush or any of his Bushniks say that THEY are terrorist and the want to kill us, it is just too funny, because in the next breadth they say, they are terrorist and WE want to kill them.
It is diffcult to for the average person to realize that Bushniks are speaking of a war against Muslims and not decribing gang activity between the bloods and the crips. No, mucus there is a third alternative the republikan conservative theory, we will ffight this phantom war until there are enough dead on both sides than we will declare victory and leave and let them fall apart, the Viet Nam theory. But just as in Viet nam they will not fall apart and we will be trading with them within a decade leaving millon dead behind us for what? As long as you keep bringing up the 280 marines, how about bringing up the war of 1812, San Juan Hill and the Alamo to fire up the conservative base. posted by
anglo1
on Sep 24, 2006 at 12:09 PM
I agree with you mocus. One negative the left likes to use against Bush is that his admin. spreads fear and in the same breath they say we are less safe now than prior to 9-11, we're probably going to die due to global warming, we've lost our civil rights, the elections are on the fix [if they lose] on and on, but the Bush admin. are the ones spreading fear, some honesty would be welcome.I believe the biggest failure in Iraq was the lack of the visionaries to see that by taking out a Muslim in that area of the world it would provide more propaganda[than they could ever generate on their own] for the anti west Mullahs and tribal leaders to whip their nearly retarded followers into a frenzy. posted by
TomW
on Sep 24, 2006 at 12:35 PM
You beat me to it, Hardliner. I wanted to hit this story today. What's amazing is that I'm with the CIA and the military people, and I'm somehow a left wing lunatic. I guess when there are people who'll publicly say that the CIA, DIA, NSA, FBI, etc. are throwing up a left wing smokescreen, it shows how detached some people are from reality.Anglo, here's the difference between the fear that Bush sells and the fears of the left: Bush offers solutions that make the problems worse. I'm not selling fear, I'm saying these are the problems, let's find solutions. It's empowerment. You're a bright person, but you're arguing against the CIA on terrorism, 99% of climate scientists on global warming, constitutional scholars and your own eyes on civil rights, Diebold employees on Diebold. I believe the experts. By the way, we took out a secular government in Iraq. They may have been Muslims, but they weren't Wahabbist. Saddam is a bad guy, no doubt. There are a lot of bad guys in the world that are a real threat to us though. People seem to forget that the last time we attacked Iraq, when they had a real military, the Iraqis were surrendering to camera crews. That's not a real threat. Bin Laden, who we only chase during election seasons, is a real bad guy, and Bush blew it. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 24, 2006 at 01:10 PM
Anglo and Moke, can you seriously be confusing an intelligence agency's report with a "left wing smoke screen?". If you are suggesting that we keep doing what we're doing, please tell me why you feel it will work. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 24, 2006 at 01:15 PM
Anglo, on a blog sometime ago, I think I showed you where today's far right wing, in their very own and unmistakable words, say that they want to take our civil rights and civil liberties away.. I can repost my proof if you'd like. . I'm just having a hard time understanding why you'd get angry at people who point this fact out -- unless you also want to take away our civil rights. . I know you better than that, Anglo. I don't think you want to take our civil rights away. . So why, then, bash the people who point this fact out? I just don't understand it. posted by
tonyh
on Sep 24, 2006 at 02:55 PM
We should have NUKED Afganistan in the beginning. Iraq wouldn't even be a topic of discussion right now. Iran wouldn't want any of it either.We screwed up 5 years ago. That's why we're still over there fighting. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 24, 2006 at 04:19 PM
For better or worse, I think the eventual use of nukes is inevitable. Sooner or later, someone will decide that nukes are the only way to get the upper hand on the hive of killer bees that we're stirring up. . I really hate to say this, but nuking Afghanistan would probably have worked. It would have put terrorists on notice that if you try something, this is what will happen to Allah's promised land. posted by
tonyh
on Sep 24, 2006 at 05:10 PM
I think we'd be hearing about a lot of other Countries busting Terrorists in order to keep from being next on the list of "Superheated Wastelands". Support for Terrorism would suddenly have fallen out of style.I firmly believe that we screwed up by NOT nuking them off of the map, right after 911. If we'd done it, this whole thing would be over and we could now be working on solving our domestic issues (Healthcare, Illegal Immigration, Petroleum Dependancy, etc.). posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 24, 2006 at 06:13 PM
So Bush is holding our civil liberties hostage, then, Mucus? Sounds like terrorism to me.
posted by
anglo1
on Sep 24, 2006 at 07:36 PM
The increase in terrorist activity was anticipated by the NIC 3 years ago. Go to their home page and read some of the directors speeches regarding life after Iraq or after 9-11. Adding a link here is foreign to me,sorry. I wasn't angry, I just see how both sides of the issue are using the same techniques, such as fear. Both sides, with the same goal, to make their party or political orientation appear to be so right. Tonyh I thought after 9-11 it should have been Afghanistan, N. Korea, Iraq, then either Syria or France.
posted by
tonyh
on Sep 24, 2006 at 07:49 PM
After the first mushroom cloud, (and we said "OK, who's next?",everybody else would have sit down and shut up. Rather than bitching about and criticizing the U.S., they'd be cleaning the Terrorists out of their own houses before we air mailed the next one to them.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 24, 2006 at 08:18 PM
Or they would have nuked NYC. Proportional response.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 24, 2006 at 08:20 PM
By the way, Mocus. You're the one one who has sided with Al-Queda here. "Anything to get the bad guys" is what makes them the bad guys.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 25, 2006 at 08:14 AM
I agree with tonyh and her Bro mucus, we should use the big one on all who disagree with us , but we should also build Cheney type bunkers for the return mail that is sure to follow.
Only by Nuclear war can we sort out the good guys and the good guy will those left standing, Islam-fascists ot Christiano-fascists no matter, it will be the golden rule " Do unto others with prejudice as you hope they will not do unto you with your planes". "it should have been Afghanistan, N. Korea, Iraq, then either Syria or France.", nah, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Monaco, Andorra, and maybe Liechenstein....now that would make us look good...and maybe we can do Granada twice to prove our manhood. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 25, 2006 at 09:16 AM
Wow. I didn't know there were actually people out there that want a nuclear war. I guess the war on frozen burritos isn't good enough for some. We actually have been developing mini nukes, which is a lower yield nuclear bomb. Bush is just dying to create a radioactive middle east. I guess torturing muslums just isn't enough for him anymore.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 25, 2006 at 09:21 AM
Hey be careful, in some neighborhoods, Burritos are lethal weapons, hot enough to set off a nuke.
posted by
tonyh
on Sep 25, 2006 at 09:36 AM
Want of a nuclear war and the need for it are two totally different things. I'm personally opposed to it, but I think it would have been the lesser of two evils. This whole thing would be a thing of the past by now.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 09:42 AM
In the same way that the Day Fire has made the trash-burning which started it a "thing of the past."
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 09:45 AM
Hey, anyone heard from Sam Heath lately? Shouldn't he have posted a couple of anti-ACLU rants by now?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Tony, how do you think this whole thing would be over if we just wiped out part of the country? We would have a horrible humanitarian problem and millions in the area would be aflicted with cancer from the fallout. Most of the current violence is sectarian violence due to years of oppression by the minority.
posted by
dgrealish
on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:26 AM
I e-mailed Sam on Saturday and received a reply. As for how he's doing, refer to his post September 19, 2006.
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:34 AM
Um Pete, we already have a huge humanitarian problem in Iraq. And we've already killed the same number of civilians in Iraq as we did in Hiroshima. And the "fallout" (sectarian violence) is staying around to kill those that the US missed. And we're being condemned by nations around the world. So, really, what would a nuke have hurt?. Has anyone else read Greg Palast's newest book? Lays out our errors in Iraq very nicely, and details the "how" and "why" with more than enough evidence for a conviction in the Hague... posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Thanks, dg. I note he signed in yesterday, but hadn't seen one of his missives over the weekend that I could recall.. Um, it would have hurt anyone downwind, Mattloch? And there's still a chance (I haff a PLAN!) to get out of Iraq with a shred of decency left, but a nuke would've destroyed that. . Not that I base foreign policy on Tom Clancy novels (although it would be better than what we've got now) do you recall the ending of "The Sum of All Fears," book version? It has the US President considering a retaliatory nuclear strike against an Arab country for a terrorist nuke in Denver. He's stopped, which turns out to be a Good Thing. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 25, 2006 at 11:02 AM
That's right about the wind RF. Using a nuke on a country that didn't attack us is like using an uzi on your neighbor because you've never liked him. Just a little overkill I think. You think the world is mad at us now, just think if we had nuked Iraq who didn't posess weapons of mass distruction or have anything to do with 9-11. posted by
tonyh
on Sep 25, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Nuking Iraq wasn't what I said.I said that we should have nuked Afghanastan. If we had, Iraq wouldn't even be a topic for discussion right now.Sadam would have sit down and shut up (right after he changed his underwear). posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 11:22 AM
But that wasn't what this was all about, Tonyh. Iraq was the target all along. Nobody in the Bush administration gave a damn about Afghanistan. They *WANTED* this lost-cause war with Iraq, and they lied to get it, and it's made things worse by any measurable standard. . Saddam was already down. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 25, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Be serious tonyh, we would still be trying to justify collateral damage and nothing would be changed with the exception that even those who are friends now would hate us even more, but than we are the greatest and who cares, right?
I love it when the neocons take nuclear devices lightly as if they can really be controlled, if you believe that that hese "bad "guys are trying to get their hands on nukes now, their efforts to get one would be heightened. They could easily put it into a container and have it go through any port in America without detection, than you would have to change your underware, if you actually wear any. You cannot scare these people into submission, this is religious war, they will not go away, they will not be blown away, time is on their side. You make it sound as if war and conflicts are something unique for this area today, not true they have been fighting for centuries and will continue to fight for many more. This mentality that we can force anything on them is what got this administrations in this quagmire, but what the hell we always believe that we can cure everything by the bomb, that is why everyone wants a bomb, so that THEY can cure our ills as they see them. We started this nuclear business and someday someone will use it against it and with our arrogant view of the world it may be sooner rather than later. posted by
tonyh
on Sep 25, 2006 at 11:55 AM
It's only religious war for those at the bottom of the food chain. They've been fed a line of crap so long that they believe it. The ones at the top, who are calling the shots, are in it for money and power. For them, the religion thing is smoke and mirrors. Those people ARE afraid to die. That's why they recruit peasants to blow themselves up and stop bullets. The people at the top aren't protected from an ICBM or two and they know it. Right now, the "Puppet Masters" know that they're safe. After all, we're only killing their Pawns. They're expendable anyway. When Kings and Queens start being removed from the game, those people won't want to play anymore. THAT's why everything would be different had we nuked Afghanistan. (Three moves, and Checkmate)...............................now that I'm old, I don't wear underware, ....................I don't go to Church and I don't cut my hair,............................but I can go to movies and see it all there,.........................just the way that it used to be................................That's why I wish I had a pencil thin mustach,.............the Boston Blackie kind,................tow-tone Rickey Recardo jacket and an autographed picture of Andy Devine.....................;-) posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Tony, I've got to agree with your post, but you *DO* realize you're talking about America and not Iraq, right?. Bush isn't playing chess. He's playing solitaire. And losing, badly. . You want "everything to be different"? Step 1. Retaliate for 9/11 by going after the people who did it and Afghanistan's Taliban for supporting it. Step 2. Stay in Afghanistan until it is what we claim we're trying to make in Iraq. Step 3. Stay out of Iraq and let the WMD inspectors do their jobs. You're a chess player? The Bush Administration fell for "fool's mate" and lost the game in two moves. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:02 PM
Yeah it would be different, those at the bottom of the food chain would be at your door for a hand out, and to kick your ass , their life is not as important to them as yours is to you so they have less to lose, much less.
ah life as it should be, wake up to the realities, we do not rule the world that is just in our minds. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:11 PM
By the way, Newsweek is featuring on its cover this month the story of how the US is "Losing Afghanistan." Everywhere in the world but in the US domestic edition, where a happy-story cover piece on photographer Annie Liebowicz is featured.
posted by
tonyh
on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:13 PM
That's why I said that WE SHOULD HAVE NUKED THE PISS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN in the beginning. We would never have had to be "In there". We could have done the deed with ICBMs fired from nuke Subs. That place would still be hotter than a Girl Scout Camp Fire. It'd give the rest of the Kings and Queens something to think about. (Jeez, if we harbor Terrorists and they attack the U.S., we'll end up getting vaporized.) Somehow, I think it might cause them all to rethink their own policy towards allowing Terrorists to set up bases in their Countries. Think about it. If there's a dog living in your yard, and you feed it, it must be your dog. That's how the neighbors will see it anyway. If it craps in the yard across the street, who'll catch heat for it? You will, of course. posted by
petenews
on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Yeah destroy and leave? that is not the American way and everyone knows it. After WWII the Western Euopeans gave up their coolonial governments in Palistine and created the State of Israel not because the were nice but because they wanted us out of their hair so that they could rebuild while we they tied us up with defending Israel for 100 years, and it worked. Now if we want an depandable product we buy Mercedes, BMW, Bosch. If we want to impress our friends we serve French wine, if we want spiffy duds we go to London they only thing we have more of than Europe today is sick and homeless people.
You are whistling Dixie of you really believe that this countries can really be intimidated they have been completely destrcucted and rebuilt over the centuries and johnny come latelys like us are not going to change that, as for their neighbors like India and Pakistan who both have nukes, they would more likely be trying harder to get a delivery system than hiding, why wait and be next? These old Europe guys knew have arrogant and naive we are, just today the generals are asking for another 140 billion of your tax dollars to do you dirtry deeds in Iraq, imagine if we had devastated Afghanistan'. Since you like dog analogies, if your dog snap! in some elese yard, would you have any responsibility to clean it up...or is that just for the "bottom feeders"? If we don't harbor terrorist we may yet wind up being vaporized, remember Oklahoma City? If you want safety go live in the Australian outback....and still there is no guarantee. posted by
anglo1
on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Tonyh remember who you're arguing with, the same people who believed Clinton when he said he did not have sex with.. sorry wrong lie, he said he tried to kill Osama, he did all he could to take him out, the same ones who thought oral sex wasn't really sex. It's the disgusting game of politics. This is an election year. The anny person at the top has got be living in a liberal tube to not recognize terrorism worldwide for the past couple of decades. Even Osama knew how important Iraq is to worldwide terror organizations. If not why don't all the bad guys leave and kill the soft targets [US citizens] throughout the rest of the world. A successful Democracy in Iraq would be more devastating to the terrorists than to even the Democrats in the US. I agree with you about the pawns as willing fodder for B.S. ideology that has been pushed on them since they were children. Not just in the last 5 yrs.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:57 PM
" A successful Democracy in Iraq" is a dream turned into a nightmare, Ilover it now you are even giving Osama credit of our invading Iraq, what else Zarqawi seconded the motion?
You two wallow in this phony war on terror and your idea that only nukes solve problems, thart sad thing is that others will pick this up and solve us as a problem. Hey Clinton did have sex with that woman...lucky him as for trying to kill Osam, ,any have tried but none has succeeeded something that escapes the Fox Neocon media. As for us being soft targets, that unfortunately is a byproduct of being a free country, and that is why it is not smart to stir the nuclear hornets nest...we are probaly one of the most vulnerable countires in the world and the most hated like it or not. If you want a safe tightly wound country we will have to be like Nazi Germany where everyone told on each other and the Gestapo knew all, but than some would not mind that, right Anglo? posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:08 PM
Ah, yes, my theory is being vindicated.. Moke writes the most graphic, X-rated posts of anyone here -- and he is the one who behaves as a sex-terrified gymnophobe. . To sustain such cognitive dissonance over many years is hard on the sanity. (Oops, too late, it seems.) posted by
tonyh
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:10 PM
I think Wallace hit a little close to home with his questions. Clinton lost his cool and got really pissy with him. Wallace actually struck a nerve because Clinton went from zero to pissed-off in nothing flat. That really suprized me, because Clinton is a VERY polished interview. He's meen doing it for years, and has gotten quite good. I never expected that he'd lose his cool like that. posted by
anglo1
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:12 PM
mocus, I love it. Still laughing. Read my post again anny. They aren't killing us right and left because they pretty much have their hands full in the mideast and our "current admin." has done an excellent job of keeping the US safe. Who would have believed right after 9-11 that we would not have been hit again?
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:13 PM
I have a different take on it.. I think Clinton, after having been hated non-stop for eight years straight, finally felt free to pull the gloves off -- since he no longer had to maintain the dignity expected of a President. He gave Wallace and the rest of 'em what they deserved. . Bush gets almost as pissy, and he is still President. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:13 PM
He would chase you Mucus if you wore thong underwear, but than you would not play hard to get, in fact you are likely very easy...oh and Bill would never waste joy juice on you....no never! Wear that blue dress, ok?
posted by
anglo1
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:14 PM
H4F, really tired of getting my dictionary out.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:15 PM
Hehehe... Gymnophobe: one who is afraid of the human body.posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:18 PM
Mucus, did you see the interview? Read the transcipts? Oh, maybe you just heard Clinton was on. Your assesment of the interview was about as wrong as it gets. Of course, like Chris Wallace facts aren't your strong point.
Who was it that wanted to cut and run when we were in somalia? posted by
mattloch
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:24 PM
Anglo, you know that Osama didn't even think of Iraq until we invaded. Actually, that's not totally true. He did think about Iraq before. In 1996 he issued his "Declaration of War", and on that list he said that he wanted to remove the man he called an evil "socialist" (Saddam). He even listed Iraq higher up his "hitlist" than removing US soldiers from the "holy land" (something that Bush and Rumsfeld did for him on May 1, 2003, the day he declared "Mission Accomplished"). He hates the Iranians and Saddam even more than he hates the US. But to say that bin Ladin planned on Iraq to become a terrorist haven is misleading (if you know the true history of the situation) or an outright lie (to say it was the reason we invaded). . Mocus, is that why the incoming Bush Administration said that Clinton was "obsessed" with al-Queda? It's a good thing they stopped any investigations into them and started planning their invasion of Iraq the day they took power. You keep listening to that lying Hannity, and ignoring the truth, and people will have no reason to start listening to you. Go ahead and blame Clinton for trying to revise history while watching that ABC mocudrama and living in your little bubble. I hope your prescription doesn't get cut from the Medicare list, because then you'll have to be moved into a State-run asylum (jail), and they don't allow prisoners to watch Faux News because it starts riots over who will get to rape various members of the Administration after indictments get handed out... posted by
anonymous
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:28 PM
"Who would have believed right after 9-11 that we would not have been hit again? "
You give us way too much credit, why would they risk a botched up second try, they are not a rich high tech outfit, this is guerilla war, war of opportunity and you have to wait your turn no matter how long it takes and they will. Nothing hurts or is so damaging to a guerilla war than impetuous, impattient action...time is there most valuable tool of war. The next one is coming...and it will be as much of a surprise as the last one no matter what party is in power for us at the time. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:37 PM
Yeah, but to be fully satisfied Mucus would have to *ACT* on his homosexual fantasies--and what would his colleagues say?. Tony, the current population of Afghanistan is approximately 30 million. You're willing to kill that many people as a demonstration? Sounds like you could give lessons to Osama bin Laden. . Maybe Clinton is tired of having being proved right and still having to face know-nothing interviewers like Chris Wallace. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:39 PM
Anny, we *WERE* hit a second time. Anthrax.. Here's the Newsweek story, by the way: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/149... Now we've lost *TWO* wars under Shrub. So he wants to start a *THIRD.* posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 25, 2006 at 01:55 PM
Besides which, Anny, bin Laden's group has no reason to hit the US again. As a nation we've done everything he's commanded us to, right down to re-electing Bush. He's winning, why rock the boat?posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 25, 2006 at 02:03 PM
We're hitting ourselves monthly. With a huge bill for the war in Iraq, with no plans on how to achieve peace, or really what to do in the present besides survive another day.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |
