Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 91 (289728)
02-23-2006 9:11 AM


At first I wasn't paying much attention to the news regarding a port deal that the Bush administration is supporting. But after reading about it (here is a link to a cnn article) I was stunned.
Now I'm pretty liberal about not demonizing everyone in the mideast and trying to work with them, even if we have some separate ideas about good gov't. HOWEVER, I can not understand how it is a good idea to allow a company owned by a foreign gov't to control six major seaports of the US. Call me crazy but that sounds insane.
How can that possibly increase security for this nation? And indeed it is specifically putting our ports into the hands of a nation which could change sides on us sometime in the future, as well as be infiltrated below the top leadership level.
The killer for me is that we are actually going to allow them LESS restrictive and intrusive recordkeeping obligations, than people working in the mainstream adult porn industry. Okay lets say people of the US are so concerned about child porn possibly accidentally occuring that they essentially ruin sexual speech for adults, and that this makes sense. Don't those same people (which is the Bush administration and Reps in general) feel the same concern about the possibility of terrorist activity coming through our ports? I mean "smoking gun as atomic cloud" and all that? Isn't that more serious?
And how can they be openly worried about border control with mexico, yet be fine with a foreign nation (which is not even a democracy) controlling six separate "borders", with no immediately accessible oversight?
Oh yeah, they said they'll let us have whatever access we request and documents we request. Uhmmmm, that's what saddam said, right? We weren't supposed to trust that, right? So what exactly makes this particular gov't different?
I'm looking for answers, particularly from Reps, and specifically Bush apologists. This is patently absurd to me, especially at this time in our history. If I am to believe this is a clash of cultures we are engaged in with democracy and human rights being our "side", why is it a good idea to allow six major ports to be run by another nation which is not a democracy and been cited for human and civil rights violations regarding its workforce?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 9:49 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 4 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 10:05 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 5 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 10:09 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 8 by Jazzns, posted 02-23-2006 10:30 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 11 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-23-2006 11:06 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 25 by Dr Jack, posted 02-23-2006 11:46 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 32 by jar, posted 02-23-2006 12:31 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 02-25-2006 5:39 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2006 12:03 PM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 2 of 91 (289735)
02-23-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-23-2006 9:11 AM


And how can they be openly worried about border control with mexico, yet be fine with a foreign nation (which is not even a democracy) controlling six separate "borders", with no immediately accessible oversight?
The security of the ports will not change.
That being said, I'm split on this one. One the one hand this is ASSIVE profiling. It says alot that we are trying to get these middle eastern countries invovled in Capitalism, but we won't support one of those countries that is very involved in the capitalist process by saying "we don't trust Arabs." Why would the UAE spend 8 Billion dollars buying ports that they were going to blow up when they could blow it up just as easily now? Remember, the security of the ports will not change and the UAE has agreed to WHATEVER security measures we put in place.
On the other hand, what are doing selling assets to a country that had ties with the Taliban and sent us 2 highjackers on 911?
I vacillate on this one each time I hear side A or B.
But I do wish you you'd stop blaming Bush for everything. The Whitehouse didn't know about the deal until it was finished. You call me a Bush apologist, I call you a Bush what-kind-we-blame-him-for-todayist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 9:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 10:00 AM Tal has replied
 Message 6 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2006 10:09 AM Tal has replied
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 10:19 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 12:32 PM Tal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 91 (289736)
02-23-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tal
02-23-2006 9:49 AM


The Whitehouse didn't know about the deal until it was finished.
Oh, right. I mean, let's cut them some slack. They can hardly be expected to bother themselves about something as trivial as the security of six major US ports, whithout which our economy would crumble, right?
It's hilarious the way you defend Bush, Tal. Everytime you try you just make them look even more like idiots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 9:49 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:12 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 4 of 91 (289737)
02-23-2006 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-23-2006 9:11 AM


holmes writes:
how it is a good idea to allow a company owned by a foreign gov't to control six major seaports of the US. Call me crazy but that sounds insane.
Most of your ports are already controlled by foreign companies, British companies control many, while the singaporean govt own a company that controls about 4 or 5 ports on the west coast.
Security will still be the remit of the coastguard and the homeland security dept.
holmes writes:
as well as be infiltrated below the top leadership level.
Any company, even a US one could be infiltrated.
The way I see it, if this is defeated, i.e. this company is refused the contract purely because it is a mid-east company (and lets face it, that is the only reason) the gulf between the US and the mid east will widen, and resentment will grow further.
I'm not saying you should give them the contract to ease relations, but rather, the fact that they are a mid east company should merely ensure that security checks are tough and complete.
I feel myself agreeing with bush on this one... I think I'm gonna lie down..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 9:11 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 5 of 91 (289738)
02-23-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-23-2006 9:11 AM


I'm a little surprised at your stance here Holmes,
I'm not sure on what basis you consider the UAE a threat, simply because two of the 9/11 bombers were citizens? in that case stop all business with Irish companies too, because some of our citizens were terrorists.
Is it because the former government has tenuos links to terrorists? in that case stop all business with the UK, French, and indeed your own government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 9:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 10:44 AM Heathen has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 91 (289739)
02-23-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tal
02-23-2006 9:49 AM


But I do wish you you'd stop blaming Bush for everything. The Whitehouse didn't know about the deal until it was finished.
No... Bush didn't know about it until then. But his administration was the one that made the deal.
It's Bush's responsibility to know what his appointees are doing. Ideally, the buck should stop with the boss.
Either way though, Bush is threatening to veto any attempt to stop the deal. So whether he knew about it then or not, he's firmly behind it now.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 9:49 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:13 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 91 (289742)
02-23-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tal
02-23-2006 9:49 AM


The security of the ports will not change.
That is an assertion. I am suggesting that it most certainly can change, given that we are changing the nature of the company running the port and how it will handle its recordkeeping activities. If the security is to remain the same, we will have to increase our own efforts and spending to make up for deficits due to the change.
It says alot that we are trying to get these middle eastern countries invovled in Capitalism
A gov't owned business is not capitalism, it is fascism or socialism. And more importantly this is not like allowing a UAE business to open a store in Times Square. This is about having a nationally owned business control 6 major ports of ours. In the era of increased security concerns that seems like insanity.
Shall we have an Afghani or Pakistani owned company take over control of a few major airports? Would that make sense at all?
Why would the UAE spend 8 Billion dollars buying ports that they were going to blow up when they could blow it up just as easily now?
An intelligent enemy would never blow up the port. They would use the port as access to a nation to blow up or otherwise hinder the nation. And I am not trying to claim that the UAE is actually an enemy and inteds to do something nefarious. I'm saying that this will allow people who might infiltrate that structure, or perhaps future leaders of the UAE, to work against our national interests.
Ports are very important to our nation. Foreign control of our ports does not feel right.
UAE has agreed to WHATEVER security measures we put in place.
Yes, and Iraq agreed to let the inspectors back in and have full access. Agreements don't mean much in practice do they, when one is faced with a less than honest opponent.
I do wish you you'd stop blaming Bush for everything.
1) I didn't blame Bush alone. I blamed his administration, as well as reps who are now supporting it. Since Bush is supporting it he gets the blame along with everyone else.
2) Bush must have known something about this. If he didn't that is actually a whole other problem. How could he as president, not be aware of at least the outline if not the details of a deal involving a nationalized business from the mideast gaining control of 6 major ports? If I were president I would have been extremely interested in information at most stages of that. Can I ask who you believe is responsible for the deal?
3) I stated that I had not been following this story and had assumed that any negative comments would have been related to a protectivist position, which I would have had sympathy for. Thus he (and other reps) could have done something I agreed with by not allowing this to happen. That would have been the "old" rep thing to do. Yet they pulled a 180 and are supporting it??? I like how we unions are thought to be problematic for airports, but a foreign gov't owned (fascist) business is thought to be something positive for water ports.
I call you a Bush what-kind-we-blame-him-for-todayist.
Ahem, I preferred him over Gore. Gosh what was I blaming him for then? I supported some of his plans after 911. Gosh what was I blaming him for then? I have stated that I supported some of his more controversial plans. Gosh what was I blaming him for then?
You are an apologist because you have gone on to defend positions Bush has taken long after he himself has discarded them. You have even defended positions which are completely opposite to the platform he ran on initially and Reps supported for decades before Bush hit office.
I may seem to be blaming him alot, and that would be true. But that is not because I have to. I can say where I think he is rightand have done so. It just so happens that the guy has shattered my assumptions regarding the quality of job he would perform, and has instead run an administration producing a long string of errors. He and his people have been screwing things up pretty consistently.
This one took me as much by surprise as an idea that we'd engage in nation-building using the US military.
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-23-2006 04:20 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 9:49 AM Tal has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 8 of 91 (289743)
02-23-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-23-2006 9:11 AM


While I do agree that there is some concern over this issue I also think that any doomsday reactions are a bit premature. The biggest problem with this issue IMO is not the deal itself but the manner in which the administration handled it.
Although we don't want to treat our "allies in the war on terror" that happen to be in the middle east like outcasts it behoves us to at least be cautious and keep the people (and Congress GEESH!) informed about these situations instead of them hearing about it on the 24hr news channels. I mean how dim do you have to be to think that this would not cause problems? I swear it is like the Bush administration cannot see past their own dicks.
I will also completely agree that the "we didn't know about it" excuse is totally baloney. Not only is it a bogus cop out, it actually makes the administration look even more incompentent. Basically it amounts to saying that they put someone in charge of approving these things that didn't think it was important enough to inform anyone that this deal might be controversial. After the Brown scandal with FEMA this is just more dirt to make the hole deeper of how ass backwards people feel as to the ability of this administration to staff itself with even moderatly intelligent people.
Just about the only thing worse that could have happend to ice this adminstration's total ineptitude would have been Alberto Gonzales making a submission to the Iran Holocost Cartoon Contest.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 9:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 11:04 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 91 (289744)
02-23-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Heathen
02-23-2006 10:09 AM


I'm answering yoru last two posts to me in this one...
Most of your ports are already controlled by foreign companies, British companies control many, while the singaporean govt own a company that controls about 4 or 5 ports on the west coast.
Foreign control of ports should be of concern to us no matter WHO it is. If we should be supporting anything, it should be getting an american company in control of our ports. But that is not the whole point here.
The companies are British, not owned by the British gov't (I don't know about the singapore companies). Likewise that gov't is democratic and a western power. Not a theocratic state which could potentially shift alignment in the near future, from a region that has a history of rapidly shifting alignments. A change from one to the other a caretaker of a port is a shift in a very negative direction.
I might add I have no idea what business issues the British have, but the UAE as a business owner has been cited for human and civil rights abuses.
Security will still be the remit of the coastguard and the homeland security dept.
Don't you believe we'd have to work a little less with Britain who has a friendly and certain intelligence system, than a theocratic state with a borderline and almost nonexistant intelligence system? We are taking on extra work based on this deal, and not to our benefit (for example if we made everything in house).
Any company, even a US one could be infiltrated.
Potentially that is true, but obviously we can keep better tabs on what happens here as opposed to what happens there. In this case the owners are a bunch of theocrats (I'm not being hyperbolic that is actually the nature of the gov't) who don't have to answer to us other than as a foreign state. And as I mentioned earlier this deal actually gives them more control over records than mainstream porn companies in the US. Doesn't that seem a bit backwards?
is refused the contract purely because it is a mid-east company (and lets face it, that is the only reason) the gulf between the US and the mid east will widen, and resentment will grow further.
But that is wrong. It would be refused because it is a foreign company owned by a theocratic gov't. in a turbulent part of the world with a history of changing allegiences, being put in a position where it will have control of 6 major ports, at a time where we are facing determined theocratic enemies from that region.
Honestly, turning them down on this cannot be defended based on improving diplomacy in that part of the world. How about NOT INVADING nations? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do business here, just not put in charge of our major arteries.
I'm not sure on what basis you consider the UAE a threat, simply because two of the 9/11 bombers were citizens?
I'm not claiming that the UAE is a threat, or that they have any ill intentions with this deal. The point is that our ports are vital and in an era where we are supposed to be security conscious, perhaps we should be conscious of what such a deal means for our security.
It is NOT a step forward for security, and as I noted with irony has now given a theocratic state in a turbulent area where our current enemy is located, more freedom than we grant porn producers in the US.
History has shown that nations in that area are prone to power shifts and also problems arising from religious zealotry. Take a look at where that nation is on the map. Iran is a stone's throw away. Suppose it got embroiled in a conflict with Iran, or worse its hereditary rulers shift allegience to Iranian belief systems, or worse?
This is not to mention that as a business owner they have a history of abuse. And they will be in charge of employment for our ports? I can't wait to see their hiring practices regarding gays and women.
in that case stop all business with Irish companies too, because some of our citizens were terrorists.
I wasn't talking about all business and that is an unfair strawman of my position. I was talking about control of our ports.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 10:09 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 11:09 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 91 (289745)
02-23-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jazzns
02-23-2006 10:30 AM


While I do agree that there is some concern over this issue I also think that any doomsday reactions are a bit premature.
Ahhhhh, this is true. I am not meaning to say bad things will happen. For all I know the UAE may be more efficient a manager of our ports than the British company.
I'm looking at this from a different perspective.
1) I was in large part arguing this from the original Rep perspective regarding security within the US. They do play doomsday scenarios, so that they didn't here is really a switcheroo. Control the borders against mexicans because we may be overrun by terrorists, but remove control of ports to a theocratic nation? There seems to be a major inconsistency here and I was trying to draw that out.
2) I was also pointing out that the practical elements actually gave greater freedom to a foreign power controlling our ports, than US adults engaged in free speech of a sexual nature. We are willing to tolerate privacy and autonomy of a foreign power operating on our soil, but not to US citizens simply trying to communicate about something that can't result in mass destruction? That's another inconsistency I was trying to draw out.
I will say that the history of that region does not assure me that this is in our best interests. Who is to say that the next set of of hereditary rulers change away from being US friendly, or that regional conflict impedes their ability to manage our ports?
Assuming stability might be nice, but its odd, especially when one of the things we said we want to foster in that region is democracy. The UAE is not, and the last time a democratic feeling swept through an Islamic nation aligned tightly to us, and accused of abusing its people, we ended up with a nation highly opposed to the US.
I don't believe disallowing such nations control over vital spots within this nation is treating them like outcasts. It is acting defensively regarding our interests. I'm sort of certain they have many things they would not allow in THEIR nation, from ours, including control of vital assets.
I will also completely agree that the "we didn't know about it" excuse is totally baloney. Not only is it a bogus cop out, it actually makes the administration look even more incompentent.
Exactly. And this is a problem in and of itself. Its not just that they did something out of character for stated conservative values, out of step with controls they place on less vital interests, and have potentially increased longterm security issues... they couldn't even figure out how to manage the process of the deal, or understand that it might be problematic to have everyone learn about it in the fashion they did.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jazzns, posted 02-23-2006 10:30 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jazzns, posted 02-23-2006 11:50 AM Silent H has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 11 of 91 (289746)
02-23-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-23-2006 9:11 AM


first of all. uae is like the switzerland of the middle east. they have all the money and everyone has some kind of dirty ties in there. so what if a couple people who "did 911" were born there. big hairy deal. i don't even believe that the "scary muslims" had anything to do with 911. it was a setup and all those people on the planes are in gitmo. it makes much more sense.
so why is it that bush is being so foreceful about this? is he looking to tighten his reign by orchestrating another attack? reich fire #2. or is his family getting a kickback?
but worse. why did he learn about it "on the news"? what is really going on here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 9:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 11:36 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 12 of 91 (289747)
02-23-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
02-23-2006 10:44 AM


I can see your points, but at the moment I'd agree with Jazzns that it is a bit of a knee jerk reaction
Whether the companies are government owned or privately owned in that country make little difference, if anything I'd venture that a government owned company would be more accountable.
If you have someone trying to infiltrate your ports, they'll do it whether it be government owned, privately owned, US run or Al qaeda run.
holmes writes:
I might add I have no idea what business issues the British have, but the UAE as a business owner has been cited for human and civil rights abuses.
The UK goverment Fuels, through its arms trade, many of the civil wars/conflicts around the world. they are not squeaky clean.
holmes writes:
I'm not claiming that the UAE is a threat, or that they have any ill intentions with this deal.
right.... so why the objection?
holmes writes:
And they will be in charge of employment for our ports? I can't wait to see their hiring practices regarding gays and women.
I would assume that if they are employing in your country they would have to abide by labour laws in your country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 10:44 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 11:14 AM Heathen has replied
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 02-23-2006 11:49 AM Heathen has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 13 of 91 (289750)
02-23-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 10:00 AM


Oh, right. I mean, let's cut them some slack. They can hardly be expected to bother themselves about something as trivial as the security of six major US ports, whithout which our economy would crumble, right?
It's hilarious the way you defend Bush, Tal. Everytime you try you just make them look even more like idiots.
I'm sorry if you take offense to facts. I know you don't like them, but they are reality.
Go cry somewhere else.

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 10:00 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 11:15 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 14 of 91 (289751)
02-23-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dan Carroll
02-23-2006 10:09 AM


But his administration was the one that made the deal.
Allow me to correct you.
The ports are currently run by British ports and shipping firm P&O, which has agreed a $6.8bn (3.9bn) takeover by DP World.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4734728.stm
That is who made the deal. It is a simple business deal between 2 businesses. Not some Government port sales agreement.
This message has been edited by Tal, 02-23-2006 11:20 AM

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2006 10:09 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2006 11:33 AM Tal has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 91 (289752)
02-23-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Heathen
02-23-2006 11:09 AM


I would assume that if they are employing in your country they would have to abide by labour laws in your country.
You'd think so, but the Bush administration was so intent on this deal going through that they've specifically waived many of the requirements foreign corporations must usually adhere to in order to do business here. I don't know that our labor laws are one of them, but since the requirement that the corporation maintain copies of its business records on US soil was waived, even if they violated our labor laws, they'd be essentially immune from prosecution - there'd be no way to push discovery because they're under no obligation to respond to subpoena.
The Bush administration has essentially declared them off-limits to US courts. Seems to me like they could violate any law they liked and get away with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 11:09 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tal, posted 02-23-2006 11:22 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 31 by Heathen, posted 02-23-2006 12:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024