Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Forget Russia, forget Iran... is America the greatest threat to world peace?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default Is America the greatest threat to world peace?

    The Daily Mail is often villified by some, in the UK, as a virulent right wing newspaper, usually I hasten to add by people who haven't read it. It is undoubtedly to the right of the Guardian and fishes in the popular end of the market for readers but it comes as no surprise to me that the Daily Mail has Andrew Alexander as a columnist and is promoting his new book about how the US has, through sheer ignorance, made the world a much more dangerous place.

    Forget Russia, forget Iran... is America the greatest threat to world peace, asks ANDREW ALEXANDER in his provocative new book

    By Tony Rennell

    Truman was in an ebullient mood after his first summit meeting with a senior minister of the Soviet Union, who’d made the mistake of interrupting the U.S. President. ‘I gave him the old one-two,’ he proclaimed with a swagger, ‘straight to the jaw!’ The Russian departed, complaining that he’d never been spoken to before in such a way, not even by his boss, Josef Stalin. From that moment in mid-1945, relations between West and East plummeted and would soon enter the big freeze of the Cold War.



    America often acted tough abroad to avoid being seen as weak back home

    The confrontational pattern of world politics was set for the next 40 years — a constant clash between the two super-powers, underscored for all of us who lived through it by the terrifying threat of global annihilation from their huge nuclear arsenals. But, according to veteran current affairs commentator and Mail columnist Andrew Alexander in a provocative new book that rips apart decades of U.S. foreign policy, all that was totally unnecessary. The Cold War would not have happened — should not have happened — if it had not been for America’s profound ignorance of the rest of the world and what made it tick.

    Between 1945 and 1991, Washington’s gigantic power coupled with immense naivety made the world a much more dangerous place than it need have been. What’s more, it’s still doing so. In the Cold War’s successor, today’s so-called ‘war on terror’, only the enemy has changed. America’s skewed approach to international affairs remains the same. History repeats itself. Just as the U.S. concocted the fantasy threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2003, so at the end of World War II it conjured up and exaggerated the menace of a rampant Soviet Union set on world domination.



    The Russian Army in procession in Berlin, Germany, along the Charlottenburger Chaussee

    It was the small-town politician Harry Truman, catapulted from vice-president to President on the death of the revered Franklin D. Roosevelt, who found himself facing — as he was assured by his excitable intelligence service — a communist red tide that would sweep over Europe and Asia unless he stopped it. Afraid of being thought of as weak — a perennial paranoia of U.S. Presidents as they look over their shoulders at the rednecks in their electorate — he acted tough, hence his roughing up of Molotov, the Soviet foreign minister in 1945. ‘I am tired of babying the Soviets,’ he wrote. The only way to rein-in Russia was ‘with an iron fist and strong language’.

    But Truman was tilting at windmills. The idea that Stalin’s exhausted nation had the will or the resources to conquer any more of the world than the eastern half of Europe it already held sway over was absurd and groundless, says Andrew Alexander. Yes, it was now a superpower to be taken seriously, and would be formidable if not downright obstructive in negotiations. And, yes, it wanted to secure its borders with a firm grip on the countries around it. But global conquest was not on Stalin’s agenda.



    A Russian woman carrying a portrait of former Soviet leader Stalin during a rally to mark the communist revolution of 1917

    Government papers from the Kremlin archive show that, at that crucial point in 1945, the Soviets were intent on finding a working relationship with the West, not fighting it. If the Americans had been smarter, if they had grasped the intricacies of Moscow’s mindset, if they had ignored communist rhetoric and concentrated on realities, if they had stopped to think instead of rushing in like blind bulls in a china shop … 

    Instead, the real possibility of a stable post-war settlement that would reduce tension in the world was blown out of the water by Truman’s wholly unwarranted and ill-informed belligerence.

    Moscow countered intransigence with intransigence. The descent began from mutual suspicion to outright rivalry and the brinksmanship of the Cold War. Behind his Iron Curtain, Stalin — cut off from the world community and with no one to answer to — purged the last vestiges of democracy from those East European nations whose fate Truman had been so concerned about.

    Not for the last time, American foreign policy achieved the precise opposite of what it intended.



    Russian Air Force Tupolev aircraft used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War

    Minds were now firmly closed, positions immoveable. When Stalin died in the early Fifties, a new regime in Moscow hinted it was time to call off the dogs and work towards peaceful co-existence with the West. But Washington hawks interpreted this as the Soviets running scared. They piled on pressure to widen the gap, not close it. The arms race speeded up; spending on the military soared relentlessly. Dr Strangelove ruled. Foreign policy and the art of diplomacy and compromise were reduced to the simple issue of military preparedness.

    Meanwhile, any event in whatever part of the world — Greece, Italy, Berlin, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, the Middle East, Israel — took on a confrontational East-West dimension. In any international issue, no matter what the subtleties, all that mattered was where Moscow and Washington stood. Invariably, they took opposite sides.

    From what they perceived as their moral high ground, free-thinking Americans howled at the Russians for being enslaved to communist ideology, ignoring the fact that their own belief systems were equally questionable.

    In Andrew Alexander’s words, a ‘messianic mission’ developed that all countries should be remade in America’s image — despite the demonstrable fact that democracy is not a universally saleable commodity in all parts of the world, let alone a global cure-all. At the heart of the problem was — and is — America’s deep-seated ignorance about the cultures of the countries it wants to change. The average American takes little real interest in the outside world.



    The Glienicker Bridge in Germany, where during the Cold War uncovered spies of the East and the West were handed over on the bridge

    On the eve of invading Iraq, for example, George W. Bush had to be briefed that its people were deeply divided. The words ‘Shia’ and ‘Sunni’ were new to him. And yet, though Americans don’t really understand the outside world, they think it’s Washington’s role to run it and police it. Imbued with an overweening sense of destiny, Americans believe they must impose their own type of government and economy on everyone else.

    When that doctrine is backed up with the bombing, say, of Cambodia, the spectacle of people being killed so they can be ‘saved’ would be laughable were it not so tragic. Yet when such intervention produces hostility to Uncle Sam and demonstrators storm its embassies, Americans are baffled by this apparent lack of gratitude. They find it hard to believe they are not welcome as friends and liberators, bringing enlightenment to dark places.

    This is another manifestation, Alexander argues, of their inability to see themselves as others see them. A particular blind spot is nationalism and patriotism, which Americans value highly in themselves but fail to acknowledge is just as powerful a sentiment for others. They would fight to the last man for their own flag and their own freedom, but don’t understand when others want to do the same. Washington reacts high-handedly when its pride is challenged, but it never seems to grasp that other countries have just as much pride, which is never more evident than when they are resisting an invader.

    This is doubly true, says Andrew Alexander, when an American invasion is accompanied by the message that the country in question is inferior in its culture, institutions and people.

    Some in high places have been honest enough to see the error of their ways. Defence Secretary Robert McNamara, an enthusiast for military intervention in Vietnam when in office, later admitted: ‘We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.



    (l-r) Winston Churchill British Prime Minister, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin

    ‘Our misjudgments of friends and foes alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture and politics of the people in the area and the personalities and the habits of their leaders.’ But such admissions of error are rare. Nor are lessons learned.

    The failure in Vietnam and the loss of 58,000 American lives there in a pointless war did not stop the more recent forays into Iraq and Afghanistan, where the same mistakes have, in large part, been repeated. Indeed, there are echoes of the gross over-simplifications of the Cold War in the modern attitude of the U.S. to the war on terror. It should have learned it is dangerous to provoke the power of nationalism. It should have realised that when this force runs alongside religious fervour, the risk of conflicts spinning out of control is even greater.

    But again, efforts to understand the underlying grievances and motivation of an enemy and to appease it — dreaded word — are seen as displays of weakness and rejected as un-American. The same old mistakes are being made. Washington assumed that peace and order would break out in Iraq once Saddam was ousted. It was an epic miscalculation.

    In Afghanistan, Americans still act on the assumption that installing democratic procedures is a solution for every country’s woes. But there is no logic in this. For a popularly elected leader in a nation occupied by U.S. forces will naturally set out to prove he is not a tool of the invaders. In its drive to impose democracy, America shows no sympathy for traditional values in the Arab world, where family loyalties built up over centuries and the power of tribal elders count more than one man, one vote (and no vote at all for women).

    The Cold War would not have happened — should not have happened — if it had not been for America’s profound ignorance of the rest of the world and what made it tick

    This may offend the democratic purists but it’s the reality, and you ignore reality at your peril. That, however, is what bullish U.S. foreign policy inevitably does. America sees nations which are not a real threat as enemies, and is as likely to conjure up foes as it is to maintain friends.

    From misplaced arrogance and ignorance, it shoots itself in the foot time and again. Andrew Alexander has little confidence that this will change. Despite the fact that Americans pride themselves on being quick learners, there is little if any inclination to rethink their foreign policy.

    To alter the American mindset would mean accepting the traumatic truth that the U.S., the world’s dominant power for more than half a century, has proved itself incapable of pursuing intelligently what should be the primary aim of foreign policy — peace. On the contrary, the result of America’s mission to save the world has been to make it a more perilous place for each and every one of us. Meanwhile, because of its much-vaunted ‘special relationship’, the UK is caught by the ricochets. Over seven decades, the consequences of prolonged, unquestioning British support for whatever Washington does have often been disastrous.

    Since 2001, we have been dragged into the front line of a war on terror which has served only as a recruiting sergeant for jihadists from all parts of Islam. ‘There are few countries more given to the glorification of violence,’ Andrew Alexander concludes. ‘The American folk hero is the swaggering gunman. Let loose in the wider world, he is a threat to peace. It is our duty to warn him off this course, not trail along in his wake.’
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 08-01-2011 at 04:05 AM.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    5,795
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 1,090 Times in 555 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    I'd have to read this chap's book in full before commenting on it properly.

    At first glance it sounds a little harsh on the old Americans. I couldn't disagree with the diagnosis on Britain's decisions to scamper after various American Presidents in expectations of a pat on the head and a little bone-shaped biscuit. Although i don't think America would have taken much notice of us had we produced a handwritten note from the Queen excusing us from war, because our bad knee, but there's little doubt we'd have been better off concentrating on clearing up the mess we made of the world when we were on guard duty.

    This chap at least seems a better columnist than the likes of Amanda Platells, Richard Littlejohns and that woman who doesn't much like the gays.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to charver For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (08-01-2011)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,855
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 649 Times in 481 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 64 Times in 62 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I think that the book has some interesting points but without more hard evidence to draw upon it's not going to do much in the way of convincing so much as just agreeing with some and insulting others. Personally I think he's more right than wrong but the "world peace" isn't really an option for humanity, we're not really built to make it work.

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charver View Post
    I'd have to read this chap's book in full before commenting on it properly.

    At first glance it sounds a little harsh on the old Americans. I couldn't disagree with the diagnosis on Britain's decisions to scamper after various American Presidents in expectations of a pat on the head and a little bone-shaped biscuit. Although i don't think America would have taken much notice of us had we produced a handwritten note from the Queen excusing us from war, because our bad knee, but there's little doubt we'd have been better off concentrating on clearing up the mess we made of the world when we were on guard duty.

    This chap at least seems a better columnist than the likes of Amanda Platells, Richard Littlejohns and that woman who doesn't much like the gays.
    Which woman is that?

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    5,795
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 1,090 Times in 555 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom prendergast View Post
    Which woman is that?
    Sorry, i appreciate that may not narrow it down in this instance.

    I was thinking of the lovely Jan Moirs.

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    The Cold War would not have happened — should not have happened — if it had not been for America’s profound ignorance of the rest of the world and what made it tick
    seriously? this comment is so full of meadowmuffins, i question the sanity of the rest of the article

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    I don't know about that Yurt, there are some good points being made by the author. Having said that, the very fact that Europeans started two cataclysmic wars in the 20th century that resulted in the deaths of over 100 million peoples of all stripes and nationalties and the fact that the US involvement in those wars and subsequent interjection into European affairs and the subsequent fact that there has not been a major war in Europe in over 60 years does lend credence to the fact that the US must have done quite a few things right.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    seriously? this comment is so full of meadowmuffins, i question the sanity of the rest of the article
    I would have been surprised if you had responded otherwise. You are exactly the kind of person that the article was referring to, full of puffed up patriotism and singing God Bless America.
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 08-01-2011 at 01:26 PM.

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    I don't know about that Yurt, there are some good points being made by the author. Having said that, the very fact that Europeans started two cataclysmic wars in the 20th century that resulted in the deaths of over 100 million peoples of all stripes and nationalties and the fact that the US involvement in those wars and subsequent interjection into European affairs and the subsequent fact that there has not been a major war in Europe in over 60 years does lend credence to the fact that the US must have done quite a few things right.
    Yep, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are eternally grateful to the USA.

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    I don't know about that Yurt, there are some good points being made by the author. Having said that, the very fact that Europeans started two cataclysmic wars in the 20th century that resulted in the deaths of over 100 million peoples of all stripes and nationalties and the fact that the US involvement in those wars and subsequent interjection into European affairs and the subsequent fact that there has not been a major war in Europe in over 60 years does lend credence to the fact that the US must have done quite a few things right.
    He is explicitly talking about the post war period before the Cold War really started where the US totally failed to understand the paranoia of the USSR about being invaded again hence their need to provide a buffer zone. Too bad for the Eastern Europeans but they were left to their fate anyway in the big carve up at Yalta. The Russians were just not interested in world domination and more with ensuring that they couldn't be caught with their pants down again. I just don't think that anybody in the US, at that time, was able to understand what effect losing 20 odd million people in the war had on the Russian mindset.

    When Stalin died there was another window of opportunity with Khrushchev but as the article says, the US hawks and red necks just saw that as weakness and could only see missile and satellite gaps to be exploited and used to hoodwink the US public.

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom prendergast View Post
    He is explicitly talking about the post war period before the Cold War really started where the US totally failed to understand the paranoia of the USSR about being invaded again hence their need to provide a buffer zone. Too bad for the Eastern Europeans but they were left to their fate anyway in the big carve up at Yalta. The Russians were just not interested in world domination and more with ensuring that they couldn't be caught with their pants down again. I just don't think that anybody in the US, at that time, was able to understand what effect losing 20 odd million people in the war had on the Russian mindset.

    When Stalin died there was another window of opportunity with Khrushchev but as the article says, the US hawks and red necks just saw that as weakness and could only see missile and satellite gaps to be exploited and used to hoodwink the US public.
    Again, I'm not trying to discredit the author and you are correct. The USA made many mistakes in intervening in European affairs, of which our proxy wars that you have pointed out, are blatant examples of our mistakes. Be that as it may, my point remains valid. There has not been a major war in Europe costing large losses of life in over 60 years and that length of peace and prosperity has not occurred in European history for a very, very long period of time, probably not since the Pax Romana, so the US has done some things very, very right. In fact I think it would be quite appropriate to refer to this 60+ years of peace in Europe as the "Pax Americana".
    Last edited by Mott the Hoople; 08-01-2011 at 08:04 PM.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom prendergast View Post
    He is explicitly talking about the post war period before the Cold War really started where the US totally failed to understand the paranoia of the USSR about being invaded again hence their need to provide a buffer zone. Too bad for the Eastern Europeans but they were left to their fate anyway in the big carve up at Yalta. The Russians were just not interested in world domination and more with ensuring that they couldn't be caught with their pants down again. I just don't think that anybody in the US, at that time, was able to understand what effect losing 20 odd million people in the war had on the Russian mindset.

    When Stalin died there was another window of opportunity with Khrushchev but as the article says, the US hawks and red necks just saw that as weakness and could only see missile and satellite gaps to be exploited and used to hoodwink the US public.
    Do tell us about the brilliant understanding of what was occurring in Russia that the British and French displayed.

    Do tell us about the brilliance of the British when they broke up the Ottoman empire. What exactly were their guidelines when creating countries? Was it something to the effect of 'just draw random lines with no regard for the historical violence between the various religious sects. Let's do try to put some of each sect in each country we create and then see what happens'?

    Do tell us how the partitioning of Israel worked out for the British.

    Do tell us how much the Syrians and Lebanese people enjoyed French mandates

    The British and French were a plague on the world.... but do tell us how insightful they were at the end of WWII. What did their lack of naivete propel them to do?
    Quote from Cypress:
    "Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

    They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom prendergast View Post

    When Stalin died there was another window of opportunity with Khrushchev but as the article says, the US hawks and red necks just saw that as weakness and could only see missile and satellite gaps to be exploited and used to hoodwink the US public.
    As for this crap.... by redneck, you of course mean our President Eisenhower... the same person that came over and led so many other 'rednecks' (over 400k of whom died as a result) to help free Europe. Is that the 'redneck' you are referring to?

    Perhaps you would care to tell us what Churchill did in 1953 upon Stalins death? What did the almighty British do with that window of opportunity?
    Quote from Cypress:
    "Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

    They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom prendergast View Post
    Yep, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are eternally grateful to the USA.
    As equally grateful of the French for their colonization, or the British for excluding them from the WWI self determinations talks.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom prendergast View Post
    He is explicitly talking about the post war period before the Cold War really started where the US totally failed to understand the paranoia of the USSR about being invaded again hence their need to provide a buffer zone. Too bad for the Eastern Europeans but they were left to their fate anyway in the big carve up at Yalta. The Russians were just not interested in world domination and more with ensuring that they couldn't be caught with their pants down again. I just don't think that anybody in the US, at that time, was able to understand what effect losing 20 odd million people in the war had on the Russian mindset.

    When Stalin died there was another window of opportunity with Khrushchev but as the article says, the US hawks and red necks just saw that as weakness and could only see missile and satellite gaps to be exploited and used to hoodwink the US public.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    Cancel 2016.2 (08-02-2011)

Similar Threads

  1. How Soon We Forget
    By Canceled2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2011, 08:09 AM
  2. The Greatest Threat America Has Ever Faced: the GOP?
    By midcan5 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 11:30 AM
  3. Ok, Forget That. How about THIS?
    By jollie in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 04:05 AM
  4. May 4th, Never Forget How Far They Will Go
    By Crashk in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-04-2008, 09:59 AM
  5. But Don't Forget
    By Cancel7 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 08:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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