Sign in to follow this  
Dog

New chemical attack in Syria

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

Exactly.......  golf clap......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

Could be the rebs did it as a false flag to get us to ride to their rescue. King (I), of the Senate intell committee, said on the neuz today no evidence has been shown as yet. Looks like we are acting based on reports from the White Helmets. That's a volunteer organization made up largely of Syrians. If you currently are unable to imagine the rebs penetrating that organization...start with imagining that if they had...it would have to have been Obama's fault.

 

  

 Could the press be all wrong? "Remember The Maine!" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

Looks like Mattis was ordered to put together a demonstration of force to me. He decided hitting the old sites was either good enough or the best that could be done on short notice. The goal was to send a message, not hit the Syrian government's armed forces, many of which have Russians embedded within them. 
 

 It seems quite likely his position is much like that of Mandrake with General Ripper, attempting to stay in the game so he can moderate the madness. Mandrake had to feed bullets to General Ripper to maintain that status. 

 

 

A child, away with the fairies. Living in movies & video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

A child away with the fairies. Living in movies & video games.

I did wonder if that was too subtle for you to grasp, you didn’t disappoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mad said:

I did wonder if that was too subtle for you to grasp, you didn’t disappoint. 

I don't live in video games. I live in the real world.

Back on ignore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Saddam trucked it all to Syria.  :ph34r:

We attacked the wrong country?? Man, talk about faulty intelligence! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

A couple of days ago I was looking at Google maps/photos of my local marina. I could identify  several boats (I know them well) and could even estimate the time of day by the shadows of the masts. So how much more detail can a spy satellite see? We don't have access to that information.

Port Phillip Super Spy!!!!!

 

 

 

:funny:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Port Phillip Super Spy!!!!!

 

Fucking idiot!

Posted elsewhere. I've had a request to post a pic of your arse from a different angle.

Can't do it. Haven't got a wide angle lens!

Meli blowing it out of her arse.jpg

Meli blowing it out of her arse.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mark K said:

We attacked the wrong country?? Man, talk about faulty intelligence! 

What?.............not again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

 Go back and read again, very closely and carefully, what I wrote. It isn't what you currently think it to be, my Dunning-Kruger poster child.  

He simply noticed the sites hit were old ones, and the places hit were an extraordinarily close match to very old information. This is the opposite of saying the information is accurate, regardless of the source. 

 If you believe those sites were active there should be some reports coming down the pike about the clouds of CW which would certainly be coming from bombed CW depots. Confirming evidence will surely be available soon. Most of the nerve gasses leave droplets around that remain active for quite some time. It's really nasty shit. 

  

 

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its awesome to hear you finally admit that.

That's because I'm an awesomely humble person :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

Several experts cited said the best way to destroy chemical weapons is by explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

Yet to prove they’ve actually hit anything yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

What the poor scatterbrain Meli doesn't understand was the raids were as much to destroy the CAPACITY to manufacture the CW as to destroy any weapons themselves. Not so easy to "blow up" a CW artillery shell  or CW bomb.

Chlorine is used to make some of these CW. Chlorine is common, it used in swimming pools.  I don't know how it is converted into a weapon.

Do you understand that now Meli?

Of course, if you take notice of Mark K, the 100+ missiles landed on empty buildings because the military used intelligence 23 years out of date. 

Meli blowing it out of her arse.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

 It is unlikely we aimed at anything within the densely populated confines of Damascus, somewhat more likely our missiles wound up in there because the Rooskies may have been able to deflect them, and some may have been damaged by other means. There are reports all over the map on that. Rooskies say they got about 70% and we say none. "First casualty of war", I guess.

 However it's safe to say they got to try out their newest hardware, a rare opportunity for them. We will know more about it too.

 Ahhh...our intelligence people will anyway. We will of course be given the mushroom treatment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 It is unlikely we aimed at anything within the densely populated confines of Damascus, somewhat more likely our missiles wound up in there because the Rooskies may have been able to deflect them, and some may have been damaged by other means. There are reports all over the map on that. Rooskies say they got about 70% and we say none. "First casualty of war", I guess.

 However it's safe to say they got to try out their newest hardware, a rare opportunity for them. We will know more about it too.

 Ahhh...our intelligence people will anyway. We will of course be given the mushroom treatment. 

I was asking more in a general sense than specifically about these latest strikes.

It would seem to me that if you were bombing anything that held vast amounts of chemicals of any kind, you'd want to be sure of wind direction at the very least.

You know how firefighters have to be aware of what chemicals are stored in a factory(or any) fire?

I know fuck all about chemistry, except that you don't take hundreds of barrels of X Y and Z, dump em into a mixing bowl and add water and heat.

Point Break would know but he doesn't play here anymore :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

 It is unlikely we aimed at anything within the densely populated confines of Damascus, somewhat more likely our missiles wound up in there because the Rooskies may have been able to deflect them, and some may have been damaged by other means. There are reports all over the map on that. Rooskies say they got about 70% and we say none. "First casualty of war", I guess.

 However it's safe to say they got to try out their newest hardware, a rare opportunity for them. We will know more about it too.

 Ahhh...our intelligence people will anyway. We will of course be given the mushroom treatment. 

The Russians claim they shot down several of the missiles the UK fired at Homs target, and those destroyed missiles caused 3 injuries. That report not validated. UK was firing some other type missile than tomahawks. The US was firing tomahawks from ship and aircraft at Damascus targets. No reports there of missiles shot down or injuries. IDK status of French missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

So, you think Obama was too stupid to figure out that he'd be worse off making empty threats?

What about all of COngress' declarations of the moment that they felt national security was more important than partisan manipulating? Personally, I'm disappointed that Obama was stupid enough to make the threat in the first place; but I think he was fooled into thinking that either Assad would back down with US ships off his coast and US planes in his skies, and I think he was fooled at just how dishonest Congress is/was.

I also don't think Putin "wiped the floor with him." If that were true, why did Putin put such serious effort into defeating Hillary (who would just be a continuation). But of course IYHO Democrats are weaklings. Historically, they're the guys you call in after a war is started and you want to win it. Republicans just start them.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, you think Obama was too stupid to figure out that he'd be worse off making empty threats?

What about all of COngress' declarations of the moment that they felt national security was more important than partisan manipulating? Personally, I'm disappointed that Obama was stupid enough to make the threat in the first place; but I think he was fooled into thinking that either Assad would back down with US ships off his coast and US planes in his skies, and I think he was fooled at just how dishonest Congress is/was.

I also don't think Putin "wiped the floor with him." If that were true, why did Putin put such serious effort into defeating Hillary (who would just be a continuation). But of course IYHO Democrats are weaklings. Historically, they're the guys you call in after a war is started and you want to win it. Republicans just start them.

-DSK

Just to be fair historically 

WW1 Wilson Dems  

116,000 dead

WW2 FDR Dems   

405,000 dead

Korea Truman Dem.  

52,000 dead

Vietnam Kennedy/Johnson Dem  58,000

iraq/ Afghanistan  Bush GOP  

6900 

technically Obama gets some for the surge in Afghanistan

Regardless. I think it’s fair to say The GOP hasn’t been in charge in the last hundred years of wars but one.  The lone entry while long and ongoing pales when compared to the blood spilt in previous wars

To be fair all of the wars had to be fought.    Just pointing out the politics of claiming one side or the other holds some moral high ground  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now. 

Yes, we might have advanced from "interfering in civil war" to "failed state and terrorist haven" like Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I thought I showed that he couldn't disregard Congress, the threat of impeachment was too heavy. In many ways, Trump and Obama think alike about Syria, neither wants to be involved in a war there. Both have been ineffectual, Trump's two attacks didn't accomplish much, neither did Obama.

You can tell when we've "accomplished much" by the smoking ruins and swarming terrorists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You can tell when we've "accomplished much" by the smoking ruins and swarming terrorists.

That's how terrorists are born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You can tell when we've "accomplished much" by the smoking ruins and swarming terrorists.

You've been taking lessons :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Just to be fair historically 

WW1 Wilson Dems  

116,000 dead

WW2 FDR Dems   

405,000 dead

Korea Truman Dem.  

52,000 dead

Vietnam Kennedy/Johnson Dem  58,000

iraq/ Afghanistan  Bush GOP  

6900 

technically Obama gets some for the surge in Afghanistan

Regardless. I think it’s fair to say The GOP hasn’t been in charge in the last hundred years of wars but one.  The lone entry while long and ongoing pales when compared to the blood spilt in previous wars

To be fair all of the wars had to be fought.    Just pointing out the politics of claiming one side or the other holds some moral high ground  

 

Not sure I agree "all the wars had to be fought" but the world would certainly be different had we not intervened in WW1 and WW2. Remember a lot of the world holds a grudge against us...... maybe not a grudge but certainly a lack of warm fuzzy feelings..... about how long it took FDR to get us into WW2.

We could have continued to ignore German provocations and stayed out of WW1. The British would have had to sue for peace and France would have lost territory and had a punitive settlement levied on them, instead of Germany. The Kaiser stays in power and Hitler would most likely have had a very minor part in politics, especially considering that the Kaiser's heir was a right-winger himself..... maybe Germany has a revolution and turns Bolshevik? Maybe France does? I dunno. War is terrible but staying out of one does not really guarantee a good outcome.

If I were going to claim any moral high ground, I'd say that the Navy has saved more people than we've killed. As for the Democrat/Republican thing, it's just an interesting fact in the face of partisan Republican blustering that our wars have been won by Democrats, with one notable exception. In this case, the silly claim that Putin "wiped the floor" with Obama.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mark K said:

Looks like Mattis was ordered to put together a demonstration of force to me. He decided hitting the old sites was either good enough or the best that could be done on short notice. The goal was to send a message, not hit the Syrian government's armed forces, many of which have Russians embedded within them. 
 

 It seems quite likely his position is much like that of Mandrake with General Ripper, attempting to stay in the game so he can moderate the madness. Mandrake had to feed bullets to General Ripper to maintain that status. 

 

 

I'd say there is likely a lot of truth to this.  

Quote

 

Prez Trump: General Mattis, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?

Gen Mattis: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.

Prez Trump: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to the Lawyers. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Lawyer infiltration, Lawyer indoctrination, Lawyer subversion and the international Lawyer conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.  Unless there is a Russian hooker peeing on me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

In this case, the silly claim that Putin "wiped the floor" with Obama.

Who claimed that?  It wasn't me.

I still maintain strongly that obama's bluff got called in Syria and when he didn't follow though, we looked weak ever after and that emboldened Putin to take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.  It also opened the door for Russia to go in heavy in Syria and openly back Assad in the civil war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Who claimed that?  It wasn't me.

I still maintain strongly that obama's bluff got called in Syria and when he didn't follow though, we looked weak ever after and that emboldened Putin to take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.  It also opened the door for Russia to go in heavy in Syria and openly back Assad in the civil war.  

I think Europe's dependency on Russian oil emboldened him to take Crimea; it is one of Obama's failures that he did not manage to rally NATO and stop it. OTOH there is no reason to think that the Republican Congress would act any different with Crimea and the Ukraine than they did with Syria.... promise to put aside partisan bickering and then jerk the rug out from under Obama again. Kind of like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football, only disgusting instead of funny.

 

20 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

.......  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him. ......

My bad, sorry

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Wow! Away with the fairies. Blame everything on Russia. As if the Russians could be bothered screwing up a supermarkets computer for half an hour.

Got your tin foil hat on Meli?    The Russians are coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

It was in the news on Sunday morning, less than 12 hours after 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/04/16/russia-would-wage-cyber-war-britain/

i think understanding a DNS attack is a few grades above his level unfortunately, he could try a little research however if he’s inclined  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an obedient servant Trump is, instead of telling Russia to get out of the way or be killed, he seeks permission to bomb.

 

Russia: We told US where in Syria they could not bomb

Source: SKY NEWS



Moscow claims it outlined its "red lines" to US officials before the strikes were launched last weekend. 

11:08, UK, 
Friday 20 April 2018 

Russia has revealed it warned the US about "red lines" it should not cross before it launched airstrikes on Syria. 

Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov is reported to have said that officials in Washington were contacted before last weekend's strikes by the US, UK and France. 

Mr Lavrov said: "There were military leadership contacts, between generals, between our representatives and the coalition leadership. 

"They were informed about where our red lines are, including red lines on the ground, geographically. And the results show that they did not cross these red lines." 

Some 105 missiles were launched in response to a suspected chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma on 7 April that killed more than 40 people.

Read more: https://news.sky.com/story/russia-we-told-us-where-in-syria-they-could-not-bomb-11338625 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

What an obedient servant Trump is, instead of telling Russia to get out of the way or be killed, he seeks permission to bomb.

 

Russia: We told US where in Syria they could not bomb

Source: SKY NEWS



Moscow claims it outlined its "red lines" to US officials before the strikes were launched last weekend. 

11:08, UK, 
Friday 20 April 2018 

Russia has revealed it warned the US about "red lines" it should not cross before it launched airstrikes on Syria. 

Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov is reported to have said that officials in Washington were contacted before last weekend's strikes by the US, UK and France. 

Mr Lavrov said: "There were military leadership contacts, between generals, between our representatives and the coalition leadership. 

"They were informed about where our red lines are, including red lines on the ground, geographically. And the results show that they did not cross these red lines." 

Some 105 missiles were launched in response to a suspected chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma on 7 April that killed more than 40 people.

Read more: https://news.sky.com/story/russia-we-told-us-where-in-syria-they-could-not-bomb-11338625 

The little neo-Liberal loser behind a computer screen is fearless. Classic! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, badlatitude said:

What an obedient servant Trump is, instead of telling Russia to get out of the way or be killed, he seeks permission to bomb.

 

Russia: We told US where in Syria they could not bomb

So BL honestly, put your well known partisan hatred for trumpy aside for a moment..... are you REALLY willing to risk a shooting war with the rooskies over trying to send a statement to Assad?  The targets were not chosen by trump.  IN fact I doubt he could pick out syria on a map, much less tell Mattis where he wanted Tomahawks to land.  I guarantee it the was military commanders themselves who chose the targets so as not to kill any russians.  In fact NPR reported that the US, GBR and FRA used the already established "military deconfliction channels" to tell the russians where they were flying and where the launch boxes would be so as not to risk a potential mistake and cause this to escalate.  

I know it gets your dick hard to think you have something to beat the orangeman up with some dirt or "gotcha".  But you're swinging for the fences after the ball is already in the catcher's mitt.  I highly suggest you use some vaseline to cut down on the skin chaff from stroking yourself so hard.  

And BTW do you know who you sound like when you post these sorts of frothing at the mouth TDS stuff?  And I mean EXACTLY sound like?  You could be the liberal twin of NGS or Happy Jack from just a few years ago when they would breathlessly post the OOOTD (obama outrage of the day).  And you look no less buffoonish they they did when they were doing it.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So BL honestly, put your well known partisan hatred for trumpy aside for a moment..... are you REALLY willing to risk a shooting war with the rooskies over trying to send a statement to Assad?  The targets were not chosen by trump.  IN fact I doubt he could pick out syria on a map, much less tell Mattis where he wanted Tomahawks to land.  I guarantee it the was military commanders themselves who chose the targets so as not to kill any russians.  In fact NPR reported that the US, GBR and FRA used the already established "military deconfliction channels" to tell the russians where they were flying and where the launch boxes would be so as not to risk a potential mistake and cause this to escalate.  

10

Not good.

Moscow suspends US-Russian memorandum on flight safety over Syria
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Dude, check the date of the article.  

My bad. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So BL honestly, put your well known partisan hatred for trumpy aside for a moment..... are you REALLY willing to risk a shooting war with the rooskies over trying to send a statement to Assad?  The targets were not chosen by trump.  IN fact I doubt he could pick out syria on a map, much less tell Mattis where he wanted Tomahawks to land.  I guarantee it the was military commanders themselves who chose the targets so as not to kill any russians.  In fact NPR reported that the US, GBR and FRA used the already established "military deconfliction channels" to tell the russians where they were flying and where the launch boxes would be so as not to risk a potential mistake and cause this to escalate.  

I know it gets your dick hard to think you have something to beat the orangeman up with some dirt or "gotcha".  But you're swinging for the fences after the ball is already in the catcher's mitt. 

And BTW do you know who you sound like when you post these sorts of frothing at the mouth TDS stuff?  And I mean EXACTLY sound like?  You could be the liberal twin of NGS or Happy Jack from just a few years ago when they would breathlessly post the OOOTD (obama outrage of the day).  And you look no less buffoonish they they did when they were doing it.  Just saying.

Jeffie, what kind of a non-serious fuck are you anyway? You call me a partisan and then go into a ridiculous cover story to protect Trump. Russians should have never been the target; chemical weapons facilities should have been the target. Clearing everything with Russia so they could hide things and put things away in advance, destroys the whole idea of making Assad pay for his actions.

This was nothing more than another Trump production, this was a game of charades, and any actual targets were removed the moment they were given notice. 100 missiles instead of 62 and all that was spent were American taxpayer dollars for nothing. This was planned together and produced lots of bangs and no bite. I recall Russia saying that they would retaliate against any U.S. strike, now they're changing their story after the fact, but it seems to have worked on you. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-assessment/pro-assad-official-says-targeted-bases-were-evacuated-on-russian-warning-idUSKBN1HL07R

Do you think Russia would have had a fit if we bombed a few Russian soldiers? We bombed the snot out of the Wagner mercenaries, and Russia didn't do shit. The reason for that is the number of factories that service their tanks and aircraft are in Ukraine and Russia isn't going to fight anyone. There is a huge difference between pulling off a generic military action and going toe to toe with the U.S. of A. Heed your own advice, Jeff, you sound like Gator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to fight the Russians for Syria, not particularly anyway.

All yours, comrades! Lotzaluk.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Russians went away and forgot all about Syria, our efforts to re-regime the place would go about as well as ever so we shouldn't do it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

I don't want to fight the Russians for Syria, not particularly anyway.

All yours, comrades! Lotzaluk.    

Well, the reason the Russians want it is so they can build a pipeline thru it. Remember that they are major sellers of oil & gas now and still have relatively limited access to sea trade or to Europe. Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Otherwise, I'd be happy to fight Russia for Syria on the condition that the loser has to keep it

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the reason the Russians want it is so they can build a pipeline thru it. Remember that they are major sellers of oil & gas now and still have relatively limited access to sea trade or to Europe. Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Otherwise, I'd be happy to fight Russia for Syria on the condition that the loser has to keep it

-DSK

And the leaders of both nations fight it out naked in an arena with socks full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/04/2018 at 5:33 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Tell me what you mean, please - because I am of the opinion that past behavior and observations on the ground make the possibility that the regime deployed chemical weapons again very plausible.   I'm also very much disinclined to accept Russia's accounting of events at face value.   There are some capable and independent authorities that are poised to do a proper investigation, their opinion will mean a bit more to me than the conspiracy-theory, hate the US and Israel spew of many that are contributing to this thread. 

Sorry, RL has been kicking my butt lately.

I have highlighted the word in your post which is at the heart of our disagreement.

Your posts are completely reasonable and make perfect sense, if you believe this.

Personally, I have difficulty with that bit. but then I'm a stickler for evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/04/2018 at 1:13 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the reason the Russians want it is so they can build a pipeline thru it. Remember that they are major sellers of oil & gas now and still have relatively limited access to sea trade or to Europe. Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Otherwise, I'd be happy to fight Russia for Syria on the condition that the loser has to keep it

-DSK

Wrong way around. Quatar etc want to put a pipe across Syria to compete with Russia, who is in the process of running a big new pipe through Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2018 at 9:20 AM, Shortforbob said:

I was asking more in a general sense than specifically about these latest strikes.

It would seem to me that if you were bombing anything that held vast amounts of chemicals of any kind, you'd want to be sure of wind direction at the very least.

You know how firefighters have to be aware of what chemicals are stored in a factory(or any) fire?

I know fuck all about chemistry, except that you don't take hundreds of barrels of X Y and Z, dump em into a mixing bowl and add water and heat.

Point Break would know but he doesn't play here anymore :(

 

When not being delivered as a carefully planned munition in a carefully selected environment, chemical weapons are not all that much nastier than a fire at any other chemical processing factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 11:09 PM, Mark K said:

I don't want to fight the Russians for Syria, not particularly anyway.

All yours, comrades! Lotzaluk.    

Zactly!  BL seems to want to get into a shooting war with Russer just so he can assuage his TDS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 4:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

If the Russians went away and forgot all about Syria, our efforts to re-regime the place would go about as well as ever so we shouldn't do it anyway.

Who's suggesting re-regiming?  For all of trumpy's faults - at least he hasn't fallen into that trap yet that the past 3 preznits have.  

Frankly, I'm more than happy for The Rooskies to have ownership of that pile of broken Pottery Barn pottery.  I'm glad we've kept our eye on the ball and focused on Daesh.  Let putin have the long term headache for a change.

However, I do think that if 'Murica and the West says "don't use Chems or else" - there needs to actually be an "or else".  I don't beleive that we should have said "or else" in the first place because the number of civilians dying from conventional weapons far exceeded the number by chems.  However, it IS an internationally agreed upon Taboo to not chem civilians.   So as soon as Obo declared that Red Line, we were committed to enforcing it, lest we then look weak and embolden this regime and other regimes to ignore us.  Its like the parent who continually tells their child that if they continue misbehaving they will get a spanking or a timeout but then never follow through on it.  The child will just get worse and worse and continue acting out because they know mom and dad are softies.  The problem for several years was that Obama WAS that soft parent who kept hoping the child would just come around on his own without any real punishment.  And we see how that worked out.  The child just stuck out his tongue and said nyah nyah.

But just because we give the child a spanking doesn't mean we're automatically going to get rid of the child and replace it with a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 7:13 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Ummm, I'm not sure that is completely true anymore.  Erdo has been making some noises of late that he's interested in becoming BFF with Putin since he's being ostracized by the West and the US in particular is pushing back on his authoritarianism streak.  "The enemy of my enemy......" and all that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

When not being delivered as a carefully planned munition in a carefully selected environment, chemical weapons are not all that much nastier than a fire at any other chemical processing factory.

It's not just fires caused by bombing, you have tanks etc being breached and contents mixing, water from burst pipes and firefighting, gasses leaking Etc.

It's a little glib to say chemical weapons are not all that much nastier than a fire at any other chemical processing factory.

Bhopal

A gas leak at US-based Union Carbide's pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, is cited as one of the chemical industry's greatest tragedies.

On December 3, 1984, methyl isocyanate gas leaked from the facility during the early hours of the morning while local residents slept. Around 2,000 people died immediately, with another 8,000 dying later.

The initial investigation suggested that large volumes of water had entered the chemical tank, which caused a chemical reaction and led to the leak. The incident highlighted the problem of urbanization and having a plant located near a densely populated area. In 2001, Union Carbide became a wholly owned subsidiary of US giant Dow Chemical.

Seveso

On July 10, 1976, in a small Italian town north of Milan, a reactor at the ICMESA chemical plant overheated, resulting in an explosion and the first, and highest known exposure, to dioxins in a residential area. A toxic cloud containing 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol - used to make pesticides and antiseptics - spread to the densely populated city of Seveso.

This became the catalyst for the Seveso Directive, in 1982, which has since undergone numerous amendments. It was replaced by the Seveso II directive in 1996.

SCHWEIZERHALLE, SWITZERLAND - November 1, 1986

Water used to extinguish a major fire at the Sandoz chemical factory in 1986 washed chemicals into the river Rhine, one of Europe's busiest waterways. The spill caused severe pollution, which took years to eradicate, and killed an estimated 500,000 fish.

The incident highlighted the need for antipollution legislation in Europe. Soil was excavated from the area and decontaminated to ensure there was no risk to the groundwater.

The German chemical company also developed a new framework for warehouse safety, including segregated storage for different risk categories of chemicals, and fire measures such as retention basins for run-off water.

 

Given the illegal and therefore secretive nature of the contents of a Chem weapons plant, I'd be a little careful assuming a targeted bombing results in exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 4/22/2018 at 8:37 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

If the Russians went away and forgot all about Syria, our efforts to re-regime the place would go about as well as ever so we shouldn't do it anyway.

Who's suggesting re-regiming?  For all of trumpy's faults - at least he hasn't fallen into that trap yet that the past 3 preznits have.  

Frankly, I'm more than happy for The Rooskies to have ownership of that pile of broken Pottery Barn pottery.  I'm glad we've kept our eye on the ball and focused on Daesh.  Let putin have the long term headache for a change.

However, I do think that if 'Murica and the West says "don't use Chems or else" - there needs to actually be an "or else". 

OK, or else what?

Or else we'll re-regime your ass?

That's the most common one.

So I'd say the answer to your opening question is: you are. Umm... again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, or else what?

Or else we'll re-regime your ass?

That's the most common one.

So I'd say the answer to your opening question is: you are. Umm... again.

Actually, nothing about my post that you linked to in any way suggest regime change.  None.  

And I would say that regime change is really not that common among modern US military interventions.  Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have been fairly unique events in our last 70 years of warfare since WWII.  Well, OK there was Panama, Grenada and a few poorly executed attempts in Central America in the 80s.  But for the most part, most of our stuff has been about regime preservation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Actually, nothing about my post that you linked to in any way suggest regime change.  None.  

And I would say that regime change is really not that common among modern US military interventions.  Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have been fairly unique events in our last 70 years of warfare since WWII.  Well, OK there was Panama, Grenada and a few poorly executed attempts in Central America in the 80s.  But for the most part, most of our stuff has been about regime preservation.

OK, so or else what then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Actually, nothing about my post that you linked to in any way suggest regime change.  None.  

And I would say that regime change is really not that common among modern US military interventions.  Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have been fairly unique events in our last 70 years of warfare since WWII.  Well, OK there was Panama, Grenada and a few poorly executed attempts in Central America in the 80s.  But for the most part, most of our stuff has been about regime preservation.

OK, so or else what then?

Desert Storm, Allied Force, El Dorado Canyon, Desert Fox, The Bin Laden Raid, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Desert Storm, Allied Force, El Dorado Canyon, Desert Fox, The Bin Laden Raid, etc

The effort to re-regime Kuwait after Saddam de-regimed it wasn't about re-regiming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The effort to re-regime Kuwait after Saddam de-regimed it wasn't about re-regiming?

No.  When you are just allowing the original regime to go back after kicking out saddam, that's not really re-regiming.  

It would be like you fleeing your house because burglers invaded you and you ran out the back door...... and then when the Po-Leece arrived and finally arrested the home invaders after a few hours of them lounging on your sofa, eating your food and drinking your beer and then you re-occupied your house after they were gone.... you haven't really "re-regimed" your own home.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No.  When you are just allowing the original regime to go back after kicking out saddam, that's not really re-regiming.  

It would be like you fleeing your house because burglers invaded you and you ran out the back door...... and then when the Po-Leece arrived and finally arrested the home invaders after a few hours of them lounging on your sofa, eating your food and drinking your beer and then you re-occupied your house after they were gone.... you haven't really "re-regimed" your own home.  

I guess our difference is on whether the people of Kuwait or some "royals" and US politicians should decide who goes back in the house.

I don't recognize the "rights" of royalty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
26 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No.  When you are just allowing the original regime to go back after kicking out saddam, that's not really re-regiming.  

It would be like you fleeing your house because burglers invaded you and you ran out the back door...... and then when the Po-Leece arrived and finally arrested the home invaders after a few hours of them lounging on your sofa, eating your food and drinking your beer and then you re-occupied your house after they were gone.... you haven't really "re-regimed" your own home.  

I guess our difference is on whether the people of Kuwait or some "royals" and US politicians should decide who goes back in the house.

I don't recognize the "rights" of royalty.

Well, given they were in the house before and the Kuwait people didn't seem to mind, that's not my business.  If the Royals want to go back in the house and their own people want to keep them out, that's up to them.  But your next door neighbor doesn't have the right to toss you out of your house.

Kicking out Saddam is still not "re-regiming" Kuwait.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, given they were in the house before and the Kuwait people didn't seem to mind, that's not my business.  If the Royals want to go back in the house and their own people want to keep them out, that's up to them.  But your next door neighbor doesn't have the right to toss you out of your house.

Kicking out Saddam is still not "re-regiming" Kuwait.  

that's pretty funny considering how many popular regimes the USA has either kicked out or tried to kick out.or how many "kicked out by their own people" you've attempted to reinstall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, given they were in the house before and the Kuwait people didn't seem to mind, that's not my business.  If the Royals want to go back in the house and their own people want to keep them out, that's up to them.  But your next door neighbor doesn't have the right to toss you out of your house.

Kicking out Saddam is still not "re-regiming" Kuwait.  

OK, it's reinstalling a regime in Kuwait, which doesn't seem that different to me.

Whether in Kuwait, later in Iraq when our action in Kuwait didn't solve our Saddam problem, or today in Syria, it's our role as world policeman that's disturbing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, it's reinstalling a regime in Kuwait, which doesn't seem that different to me.

Whether in Kuwait, later in Iraq when our action in Kuwait didn't solve our Saddam problem, or today in Syria, it's our role as world policeman that's disturbing to me.

policemen are good guys..world's dictator might be more apt, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 4/22/2018 at 11:13 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Ummm, I'm not sure that is completely true anymore.  Erdo has been making some noises of late that he's interested in becoming BFF with Putin since he's being ostracized by the West and the US in particular is pushing back on his authoritarianism streak.  "The enemy of my enemy......" and all that.  

Actually that's a good point, and close to what I was thinking just after hitting "send"

It's still true the they don't particularly like or trust each other........

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

It's not just fires caused by bombing, you have tanks etc being breached and contents mixing, water from burst pipes and firefighting, gasses leaking Etc.

It's a little glib to say chemical weapons are not all that much nastier than a fire at any other chemical processing factory.

Bhopal

A gas leak at US-based Union Carbide's pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, is cited as one of the chemical industry's greatest tragedies.

On December 3, 1984, methyl isocyanate gas leaked from the facility during the early hours of the morning while local residents slept. Around 2,000 people died immediately, with another 8,000 dying later.

The initial investigation suggested that large volumes of water had entered the chemical tank, which caused a chemical reaction and led to the leak. The incident highlighted the problem of urbanization and having a plant located near a densely populated area. In 2001, Union Carbide became a wholly owned subsidiary of US giant Dow Chemical.

Seveso

On July 10, 1976, in a small Italian town north of Milan, a reactor at the ICMESA chemical plant overheated, resulting in an explosion and the first, and highest known exposure, to dioxins in a residential area. A toxic cloud containing 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol - used to make pesticides and antiseptics - spread to the densely populated city of Seveso.

This became the catalyst for the Seveso Directive, in 1982, which has since undergone numerous amendments. It was replaced by the Seveso II directive in 1996.

SCHWEIZERHALLE, SWITZERLAND - November 1, 1986

Water used to extinguish a major fire at the Sandoz chemical factory in 1986 washed chemicals into the river Rhine, one of Europe's busiest waterways. The spill caused severe pollution, which took years to eradicate, and killed an estimated 500,000 fish.

The incident highlighted the need for antipollution legislation in Europe. Soil was excavated from the area and decontaminated to ensure there was no risk to the groundwater.

The German chemical company also developed a new framework for warehouse safety, including segregated storage for different risk categories of chemicals, and fire measures such as retention basins for run-off water.

 

Given the illegal and therefore secretive nature of the contents of a Chem weapons plant, I'd be a little careful assuming a targeted bombing results in exactly that.

Indeed if the US, France and the UK really did bomb a building filled with chemical weapons, there would've been thousands possibly tens of thousands of bodies to show for it. So far we have seen zero evidence other than videos posted to YouTube by the White Helmets as proof. Don't hold your breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 8:13 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the reason the Russians want it is so they can build a pipeline thru it. Remember that they are major sellers of oil & gas now and still have relatively limited access to sea trade or to Europe. Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Otherwise, I'd be happy to fight Russia for Syria on the condition that the loser has to keep it

-DSK

I don't think they are worried about oil for two reasons, one, they already are pumping right through the hostile Ukraine and if that shit went bad they could simply route it a bit to the north. Unlikely as hell, because the moment the Ukraine cut off the EU's oil the only friend they would have would be John Bolton. 

 Get the oil to the sea? Can't imagine what for. The main customers are Japan and China, and their biggest oil fields are out east anyway, they are currently working in conjunction with China to build one of the world's biggest pipelines to do just that. 

 What is far more likely is their fear of Islamic extremism. Nearly 20% of what used to be the USSR is Muslim, and the Russians have suffered greatly from that extremism stuff in Chechnya. ISIL was taking over and the ME is right next door. The logical thing to do is exactly what we would have done if that stuff was anywhere near our borders...seek to establish and maintain strong, at at least tacitly secular or business-oriented (like the Sauds are), gub-mint. 

 The problem is the nature of how the people feel about their religion, not the religion itself. It's about the way Euro's felt about theirs until quite recently, the industrial age, and the Middle Ages? Beheading for blasphemy was considered too good. It was for them much like what it is for many in that region, a garment which encompasses all aspects of life, and that lends a power easily exploited by fanatics. Hence, "democracy" in the region nearly always results in theocratic rule, and revolutionary theocrats, having come to power by fanning the flames of religious fervor to get there,  are nearly always self-made cunts.

   We still believe there can be no peace without our form of democracy, but the historical record of our species does not provide a heck of a lot of support for the notion.  The Egyptians gave it a go very recently, and in two shakes of a lamb's tail put their military right back in power again. Nope...not ready for that yet. Jefferson may well have been dead on the money when he said a republic can not surivive without an educated, well informed, and engaged population. Something very similar happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR. In that one religion played no role at all too. 

  The problem with Russia is it takes a long time to build the institutions necessary for a democratic Republic, most of which we US/Brits take for granted. A Putin was, and may very well still be, necessary to stave off chaos.  

 

 We ourselves are dabbling with a Trump. 

 

 

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 8:07 AM, Mark K said:

I don't think they are worried about oil for two reasons, one, they already are pumping right through the hostile Ukraine and if that shit went bad they could simply route it a bit to the north. Unlikely as hell, because the moment the Ukraine cut off the EU's oil the only friend they would have would be John Bolton. 

 Get the oil to the sea? Can't imagine what for. The main customers are Japan and China, and their biggest oil fields are out east anyway, they are currently working in conjunction with China to build one of the world's biggest pipelines to do just that. 

 What is far more likely is their fear of Islamic extremism. Nearly 20% of what used to be the USSR is Muslim, and the Russians have suffered greatly from that extremism stuff in Chechnya. ISIL was taking over and the ME is right next door. The logical thing to do is exactly what we would have done if that stuff was anywhere near our borders...seek to establish and maintain strong, at at least tacitly secular or business-oriented (like the Sauds are), gub-mint. 

 The problem is the nature of how the people feel about their religion, not the religion itself. It's about the way Euro's felt about theirs until quite recently, the industrial age, and the Middle Ages? Beheading for blasphemy was considered too good. It was for them much like what it is for many in that region, a garment which encompasses all aspects of life, and that lends a power easily exploited by fanatics. Hence, "democracy" in the region nearly always results in theocratic rule, and revolutionary theocrats, having come to power by fanning the flames of religious fervor to get there,  are nearly always self-made cunts.

   We still believe there can be no peace without our form of democracy, but the historical record of our species does not provide a heck of a lot of support for the notion.  The Egyptians gave it a go very recently, and in two shakes of a lamb's tail put their military right back in power again. Nope...not ready for that yet. Jefferson may well have been dead on the money when he said a republic can not surivive without an educated, well informed, and engaged population. Something very similar happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR. In that one religion played no role at all too. 

  The problem with Russia is it takes a long time to build the institutions necessary for a democratic Republic, most of which we US/Brits take for granted. A Putin was, and may very well still be, necessary to stave off chaos.  

 

 We ourselves are dabbling with a Trump. 

 

 

  

Concur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 12:07 AM, Mark K said:

I don't think they are worried about oil for two reasons, one, they already are pumping right through the hostile Ukraine and if that shit went bad they could simply route it a bit to the north. Unlikely as hell, because the moment the Ukraine cut off the EU's oil the only friend they would have would be John Bolton. 

 Get the oil to the sea? Can't imagine what for. The main customers are Japan and China, and their biggest oil fields are out east anyway, they are currently working in conjunction with China to build one of the world's biggest pipelines to do just that. 

 What is far more likely is their fear of Islamic extremism. Nearly 20% of what used to be the USSR is Muslim, and the Russians have suffered greatly from that extremism stuff in Chechnya. ISIL was taking over and the ME is right next door. The logical thing to do is exactly what we would have done if that stuff was anywhere near our borders...seek to establish and maintain strong, at at least tacitly secular or business-oriented (like the Sauds are), gub-mint. 

 The problem is the nature of how the people feel about their religion, not the religion itself. It's about the way Euro's felt about theirs until quite recently, the industrial age, and the Middle Ages? Beheading for blasphemy was considered too good. It was for them much like what it is for many in that region, a garment which encompasses all aspects of life, and that lends a power easily exploited by fanatics. Hence, "democracy" in the region nearly always results in theocratic rule, and revolutionary theocrats, having come to power by fanning the flames of religious fervor to get there,  are nearly always self-made cunts.

   We still believe there can be no peace without our form of democracy, but the historical record of our species does not provide a heck of a lot of support for the notion.  The Egyptians gave it a go very recently, and in two shakes of a lamb's tail put their military right back in power again. Nope...not ready for that yet. Jefferson may well have been dead on the money when he said a republic can not surivive without an educated, well informed, and engaged population. Something very similar happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR. In that one religion played no role at all too. 

  The problem with Russia is it takes a long time to build the institutions necessary for a democratic Republic, most of which we US/Brits take for granted. A Putin was, and may very well still be, necessary to stave off chaos.  

 We ourselves are dabbling with a Trump. 

I don't like to add "me too" posts - but, you made some excellent points in this one.  Well said - especially w/r/t the recognition that many here think that " We still believe there can be no peace without our form of democracy, but the historical record of our species does not provide a heck of a lot of support for the notion."  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't like to add "me too" posts - but, you made some excellent points in this one.  Well said - especially w/r/t the recognition that many here think that " We still believe there can be no peace without our form of democracy, but the historical record of our species does not provide a heck of a lot of support for the notion."  

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OPCW has finally reported back. https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-on-chemical-weapons-use-allegations-in-douma-syria-in-2018-and-in-al-hamadaniya-and-karm-al-tarrab-in-2016/

In news which will only surprise the usual gullible halfwits around here, they found that: "No organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this