Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Senator Bill Frist: Let's make nice with the Taliban

Senate 2006 Sen Bill Frist Majority Leader Afghanistan Taliban

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#41 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 10:29 AM

I  find myself agreeing with Broph - sort of.

I think what we SHOULD have done was to hunt down Bin Laden, not overthrow the rightful Afghan government. Two separate issues. But we were so hellbent on democracy in the Middle East that we never gave a thought to how we'd destabilize Afghanistan.

As much as I loathe Islamic fundamentalism, I believe the people of each country have the right to determine how they live. And Islmaic Fundamentalism isn't like Chrisitanity - it's inseparable from the culture. As much as I loathe what they do to women, I don't think we have the God-given right to tell other countries what to do or what government to choose.

We're losing Afghanistan. So what have we accomplished there, exacty?

And we know what we've accomplished in Iraq - a giant step backward into chaos and anarchy, and a new home for Al Quaida.

I'd say that every time we take another country by force, overthrow their government and then tell them what to do, we've been a colossal failure.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#42 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 10:48 AM

Rhea said:

As much as I loathe Islamic fundamentalism, I believe the people of each country have the right to determine how they live. And Islmaic Fundamentalism isn't like Chrisitanity - it's inseparable from the culture. As much as I loathe what they do to women, I don't think we have the God-given right to tell other countries what to do or what government to choose.

That argument doesn't work because the people of Afghanistan did not choose the Taliban as their government.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#43 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 10:52 AM

View PostBroph, on Oct 2 2006, 10:23 PM, said:

View PostJid, on Oct 3 2006, 02:12 AM, said:

^There's telling another country what to do, and then there's standing up for fundamental human rights.

And who decides what "fundamental human rights" are, exactly? What makes US so high and mighty?



Human rights are not a USA thing, they are a Terra thing.
Can't Touch This!!

#44 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 10:55 AM

View PostKosh, on Oct 3 2006, 03:52 PM, said:

View PostBroph, on Oct 2 2006, 10:23 PM, said:

View PostJid, on Oct 3 2006, 02:12 AM, said:

^There's telling another country what to do, and then there's standing up for fundamental human rights.

And who decides what "fundamental human rights" are, exactly? What makes US so high and mighty?



Human rights are not a USA thing, they are a Terra thing.

Only for countries that so decide.

#45 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:05 AM

Quote

And they want us to keep our hedonistic ways away from their people. Hard to do in today's world.

Did we slam our "hedonistic ways" into their buildings? The world moves forward and if they thought for a moment that attacking the WTC was gonna end the ecposure of Muslims to western culture the words "stupid and pointless" spring to mind.

Quote

That's their perspective; the one you want to ignore.

Good for them! My perspective is that their perspective killed 3,000 Americans in a violently stupid attempt to stop their own citizens from doing what they apparently wanted to do and they deserved the invasion they got. See how perspectives work?

Quote

I don't recall advocating any particular course of action.

I don't recall claiming you did. I merely applies your analogy to another situation.

Quote

Read the last thing you wrote again. Infringed on your country and its beliefs. Now do you understand that they see it as us attacking first?

Oh I see what they think, I just think it's bullsh$t.  We launched an assault with movies and music? Sorry but no one twisted their citizens arms and "made" them want those things. The radical government didn't like that they were having trouble controling their citizens so they literally attacked us in the name of supressing their own countrymen. No sympathy from me.

Quote

When did Afghanistan attack us? Go back and read the thread again. Check out what I replied to.

Via cozying up, allowing safe haven and training of terrorists in their country. Afghanistan was home base for Al Qaeda, so yes, I DO blame them for giving Bin Laden the run of the country and an open recruiting and training ground for the attack here and others around the world. After the attack they had a choice in turning over Bin Laden and they refused.

Quote

You're comparing apples and oranges again. Go back and really read what I wrote.

Ummm perhaps you need to go back and reread your own words Broph. I merely commented on them...aka...From their perspective if those woman hadn't broken "the law" they'd not have been killed, raped etc...when in fact the law advocates that treatment, even when it creates a dead if you do/dead if you don't situation. We didn't invade afghanistan based on their abhorent treatment of women, we invade because that's where Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were.

Quote

Did they attack us or did they harbor someone who attacked us (which, so far, nobody has proven)? You keep going back and forth on that idea.

By allowing him safe haven, by endorsing his actions and his form of violent fundementalist Islam, IMO yes, they did contribute to the attack. Then in the aftermath they continued to harbor him. Not proven?

http://www.infopleas...mabinladen.html

Quote

By the mid-1980s, bin Laden had moved to Afghanistan, where he established an organization, Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), to recruit Islamic soldiers from around the world who later form the basis of an international network. The MAK maintained recruiting offices in Detroit and Brooklyn in the 1980s.

The Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan, arose from the religious schools set up during the mujahideen's war against the Soviet invasion. After the Soviet army withdrew in 1989, fighting erupted among mujahideen factions. In response to the chaos, the fundamentalist Taliban was formed and within two years it captured most of the country. The Taliban gave bin Laden sanctuary in 1996.


http://news.bbc.co.u...asia/155236.stm

Quote

Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia to work in the family construction business, but was expelled in 1991 because of his anti-government activities there.

He spent the next five years in Sudan until US pressure prompted the Sudanese Government to expel him, whereupon Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan

http://www.cbc.ca/wo...sage041029.html

Quote

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#46 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:33 AM

View PostLin731, on Oct 3 2006, 04:05 PM, said:

Quote

And they want us to keep our hedonistic ways away from their people. Hard to do in today's world.

Did we slam our "hedonistic ways" into their buildings?

From their perspective, yes we did slam our ways into their buildings.

Quote

Good for them! My perspective is that their perspective killed 3,000 Americans in a violently stupid attempt to stop their own citizens from doing what they apparently wanted to do and they deserved the invasion they got. See how perspectives work?

OK, taking action when you know the consequences gets you what you deserve? So the girls playing soccer and going out without escort got what they deserved according to that line of thinking.

Quote

I don't recall claiming you did. I merely applies your analogy to another situation.

No, that's not really what you did. I already addressed the fact that anti-drug efforts are put towards the source of drugs as well as the demand.

Quote

Oh I see what they think, I just think it's bullsh$t.  We launched an assault with movies and music?

Exactly. We didn't take lives, but to them, we took souls.

Quote

After the attack they had a choice in turning over Bin Laden and they refused.

Nobody really knows where Bin Laden is, if he's even alive.

Quote

Ummm perhaps you need to go back and reread your own words Broph. I merely commented on them

No, you didn't. First you bring up beheadings. Then you bring up Bin Laden. Then you say that Afghanistan attacked the US. You keep hopping from one issue to another.

Quote

We didn't invade afghanistan based on their abhorent treatment of women, we invade because that's where Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were.

Then why have you and the others been talking about beheadings and the treatment of women?

Quote

By allowing him safe haven, by endorsing his actions and his form of violent fundementalist Islam, IMO yes, they did contribute to the attack. Then in the aftermath they continued to harbor him. Not proven?

No, not proven. You're really going to believe this when nobody from the outside has seen the man?

#47 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:34 AM

View PostBroph, on Oct 3 2006, 11:55 AM, said:

View PostKosh, on Oct 3 2006, 03:52 PM, said:

View PostBroph, on Oct 2 2006, 10:23 PM, said:

View PostJid, on Oct 3 2006, 02:12 AM, said:

^There's telling another country what to do, and then there's standing up for fundamental human rights.

And who decides what "fundamental human rights" are, exactly? What makes US so high and mighty?



Human rights are not a USA thing, they are a Terra thing.

Only for countries that so decide.




Human rights exsist, wheather the Government recognizes them or not, if not, then you have a dictatorship or a theocracy or whatever, but the rights still exsist. No government can decide if you have human rights or not, they can only punish you for exerciseing them.
Can't Touch This!!

#48 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:44 AM

View PostKosh, on Oct 3 2006, 04:34 PM, said:

Human rights exsist, wheather the Government recognizes them or not, if not, then you have a dictatorship or a theocracy or whatever, but the rights still exsist. No government can decide if you have human rights or not, they can only punish you for exerciseing them.

Nothing is a right unless it's recognized. It's one more thing that separates us from the animals, but some people don't ascribe to that notion.

#49 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:46 AM

Lets try to keep this productive, instead of the old, "but you said, no they said, go back and read what I said." That gets us nowhere.

Broph, all I can say is that Bin Ladin has taken credit for planning the murder, not only of Americans, but people all over the world. If not stopped, or at the least pressured, it will continue to happen. When he's dead, someone will take his place. As long as they, whoever they may be, continue to make terrorist attacks on the US, we'll keep bombing them, and sending troops. If things had been handled properly, Bin Ladin would be in costody by now, but then it would be harder to make a case fro Iraq and comming soon to a TV near you, Iran.

Someone, Natenyaho I think, said it best. The Taliban and Al Qeada, none of them really exsist, it's Iran running all of it, or most, and it will come down to attacking them and stopping the Nuke program, or allowing them to finish and letting them wipe out Isreal, which is the real goal. If not for US support, Isreal would have been wiped out as soon as one of the Arab countries could manage it.
Can't Touch This!!

#50 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:47 AM

View PostBroph, on Oct 3 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

View PostKosh, on Oct 3 2006, 04:34 PM, said:

Human rights exsist, wheather the Government recognizes them or not, if not, then you have a dictatorship or a theocracy or whatever, but the rights still exsist. No government can decide if you have human rights or not, they can only punish you for exerciseing them.

Nothing is a right unless it's recognized. It's one more thing that separates us from the animals, but some people don't ascribe to that notion.


We make our own rights in this world, like Jefferson, Hancock and Washington. If the Government wont give them to you, you take them.
Can't Touch This!!

#51 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:48 AM

View PostSolar Wind, on Oct 3 2006, 08:48 AM, said:

Rhea said:

As much as I loathe Islamic fundamentalism, I believe the people of each country have the right to determine how they live. And Islmaic Fundamentalism isn't like Chrisitanity - it's inseparable from the culture. As much as I loathe what they do to women, I don't think we have the God-given right to tell other countries what to do or what government to choose.

That argument doesn't work because the people of Afghanistan did not choose the Taliban as their government.

The people of Iran didn't really choose their government. There are a lot of countries ruled by despots whose people didn't really choose them or didn't fully understand what they got into when they did. Are we to unilaterally overthrow every single government? And what gives the U.S. the right? That's the big problem. Once you start, where do you stop?

Edited by Rhea, 03 October 2006 - 02:27 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#52 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:51 AM

If we had focused on capturing Bin Laden and disabling his network instead of f*ck*ng around in Arghanistan and then Iraq and forcing them to do things our way, we might have captured Bin Laden 5 years ago.

The truth is, Bush screwed up. He either lost sight of, or more likely never looked at, the prime objective, because he was too busy planning to one up daddy in Iraq. Afghanistan wasn't important.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#53 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:28 PM

Quote

From their perspective, yes we did slam our ways into their buildings.

Really? How many fatalities did they take? How many suffering and dying from the figurative smoke they breathed from that figurative building our figurative plane slammed into?

Quote

OK, taking action when you know the consequences gets you what you deserve? So the girls playing soccer and going out without escort got what they deserved according to that line of thinking.

Taking action???? Is that what you call attacking or being a willing acomplise to an attack???? Taking action is such a nice antispectic term for cold blooded murder. If you deliberately murder 3,000 civilians, yes you get what you deserve. The girls/women venturing outside without an escort (because no male relatives were still living) looking for food got what the Taliban decided they deserved...death and if they'd stayed inside with no food, they'd get the same thing...death. Were'd you get girls playing soccer from? I was referring to the Taliban lining up woman in a soccer field and murdering them.

Quote

No, that's not really what you did. I already addressed the fact that anti-drug efforts are put towards the source of drugs as well as the demand.

No what I really did was apply the reasoning you assigned to the attack on the WTC and applied the Al Qaeda model to a US response to dealing with drugs.

Quote

No, you didn't. First you bring up beheadings. Then you bring up Bin Laden. Then you say that Afghanistan attacked the US. You keep hopping from one issue to another.

I brought up beheadings because you brought up  our intereference in "their culture". We interferred with their culture because they harbored and embraced terrorism and terrorists whom attacked us. Had they not done that, had they not refused to turn over Bin Laden, we'd not ever have invade their country, hense they could have continued to behead whomever they liked for whatever halfassed reason they chose. Their actions brought us to their country.  I brought up Bin Laden because Al Qaeda was an  offshoot of Bin Laden's philospophy and direction. The Taliban supported Bin Laden in his efforts and allowed him to recruit and train terrorists in their country and over time, he took on a big role in policy making in the country. I said the Taliban attacked up because in essense they did. If you're standing outside a church telling me that if you had the means, you'd kill everyone in that church, if I give you the means to carry out that threat (and you do) am I not an accomplise to murder? In allowing Bin Laden free run of the country, the ability to recruit and train terrorists, the were accomplises to murder.

Quote

No, not proven. You're really going to believe this when nobody from the outside has seen the man?

Lemme see...we intercept tons of chatter from Al Qaeda Ops that something really big is coming. Al Qaeda is training ops in Afghanistan with the blessing of the Taliban. Al Qaeda has launched numerous, deadly attacks on US interests in recent years. After 911 we demand Bin Laden be turned over, the Taliban refuses.

http://clubs.calvin....09.21/wor3.html

Quote

On Tuesday Sept. 18th the Taliban government in Afghanistan reached a decision not to extradite the Saudi-born businessman Osama Bin Laden, claiming that there was insufficient proof of his involvement in the World Trade Center tragedy. In an official statement faxed to the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) news agency, Bin Laden claimed, ``The U.S. is pointing the finger at me, but I categorically state that I have not done this.''

Until a year later that is and then he admits it. :glare:

http://www.sfgate.co...23/MN226039.DTL

Quote

When bin Laden was linked to the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa on Aug. 7, 1998, the Taliban refused U.S. requests to turn him over. "We will never hand Osama over to anyone, and (we will) protect him with our blood at all cost," Omar told the Afghan Islamic Press 11 days after the bombings.

Nope no reason to beleive that Bin Laden was there or the mastermind behind 911 :sarcasm: We were attacked by the Tooth Fairy and her minions. So who you think was responsible for the attack Broph?

Edited by Lin731, 03 October 2006 - 12:31 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#54 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:34 PM

Quote

The people of Iran didn't really choose their government. There are a lot of countries ruled by depots whose people didn't really choose them or didn't fully understand what they got into when they did. Are we to unilaterally overthrow every single government? And what gives the U.S. the right? That's the big problem. Once you start, where do you stop?

Nope only the ones that actively embrace and harbor terrorists that attack us on our own soil. ;)
Posted Image
Posted Image

#55 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:36 PM

Rhea, my objection is to your claim that the people of Afghanistan chose the Taliban as their government, not to your subsequent claim that the Bush Administration picked a poor course of action (or at least implemented it poorly). You've admitted this first claim in incorrect. In the process, you shifted your line of argument to the claim that we shouldn't interfere in one situation unless we also interfere in all similar situations. I find that claim dubious. Moreover, it's irrelevant because we didn't attack the Taliban because of how the Taliban treated the people of Afghanistan but rather because the Taliban harbored bin Laden and let al Qaeda run terrorist bases inside Afghanistan's borders. Unlike the war in Iraq, we had a fairly solid coalition supporting the war in Afghanistan, and indeed, forces from non-U.S. NATO countries are currently doing most of the fighting so IMO it's stretching things to say that the U.S. unilaterally imposed its will on Afghanistan. In any case, even if our action in Afghanistan had been unilateral, IMO that wouldn't be enough to make our response unacceptable since we were responding to an attack on our soil. One would hope, however, that our response would achieve the primary objective of substantially crippling al Qaeda's ability to do us harm. AFAIK, al Qaeda was disrupted but not as much as it might have been if our response had been better formulated.

Edited by Solar Wind, 03 October 2006 - 01:32 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#56 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 01:31 PM

View PostLin731, on Oct 3 2006, 05:28 PM, said:

Quote

From their perspective, yes we did slam our ways into their buildings.

Really? How many fatalities did they take? How many suffering and dying from the figurative smoke they breathed from that figurative building our figurative plane slammed into?

Again I've had my text "creatively quoted". Please have the integrity to paste my entire thought there - you completely left out the idea of attacks on their souls, which they consider more important than their earthly bodies!

Quote

Taking action???? Is that what you call attacking or being a willing acomplise to an attack???? Taking action is such a nice antispectic term for cold blooded murder.

Kicking a ball is taking action. Flying a kite is taking action. You're reading something into this that I never wrote. BTW, waging war on another country is another term for cold blooded murder.

Quote

If you deliberately murder 3,000 civilians, yes you get what you deserve.

And they think that we corrupted hundreds of thousands of souls and that we should get what we deserve. Where does it end?!

Quote

I was referring to the Taliban lining up woman in a soccer field and murdering them.

Sometimes vague references can be hard to follow.

Quote

No what I really did was apply the reasoning you assigned to the attack on the WTC and applied the Al Qaeda model to a US response to dealing with drugs.

Apples and oranges. Your comparison doesn't make any sense.

Quote

I brought up beheadings because you brought up  our intereference in "their culture".

Not true. I said "Since when did a majority vote make something "right"? Didn't we have a majority in this country who once believed that slavery was "right"? Didn't we just see a House vote that said that protecting themselves from lawsuits against unconstitutional laws is "right"?" and you replied with

Quote

You don't see any difference between those instances and playing footsies with Bin Ladens allies that seem to feel seperating woman from their torso's at soccer fields is A-OK?

Quote

We interferred with their culture because they harbored and embraced terrorism and terrorists whom attacked us.

I think you've got the order of actions backwards.

Quote

Lemme see...we intercept tons of chatter from Al Qaeda Ops that something really big is coming.

Um, do you know how much chatter we intercept every day that leads to absolutely nothing? Do you know how much disinformation they want us to intercept?

Quote

On Tuesday Sept. 18th the Taliban government in Afghanistan reached a decision not to extradite the Saudi-born businessman Osama Bin Laden

Probably didn't want to admit that they couldn't find him if they wanted to.

Quote

Nope no reason to beleive that Bin Laden was there or the mastermind behind 911

So now you're back to Bin Laden.

#57 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 02:08 PM

Quote

Kicking a ball is taking action. Flying a kite is taking action. You're reading something into this that I never wrote. BTW, waging war on another country is another term for cold blooded murder.

If terror was about kicking balls, and flying kites, you might have a point, but since terror is about killing, Lin is correct in drawing that conclusion.

The truth is that they hate us because we exsist and are not muslium. Too bad. They don't get everything there way, like a bunch of babies, they want the entire world their way. They brought it to us in the form of Death.  Instead of an eye for an eye, getting the confessed perp, we went after another country altogether, Iraq. doesn't make a lot of sense, but there it is. They hate us because we aren't muslium, we now hate them for killing 3000+ of our folks, plus who knows how many others. Until we change administrations, it will probably stay this way, since the Bush team isn't likely to own up to a mistake, Iraq.
Can't Touch This!!

#58 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 02:11 PM

View PostKosh, on Oct 3 2006, 07:08 PM, said:

If terror was about kicking balls, and flying kites, you might have a point, but since terror is about killing, Lin is correct in drawing that conclusion.

Actually, she's not, since that's not what I was talking about in the first place.

#59 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 02:22 PM

View PostBroph, on Oct 3 2006, 10:23 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Oct 3 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

View PostBroph, on Oct 3 2006, 06:38 AM, said:

The last time I checked, the pope didn't get a bunch of planes to fly into buildings.
I didn't say he did.  His predecessor, however, came here and told us to change our laws.  

Nonny

Are you advocating telling the Taliban to disband and stop their ways and just leave it at that?

What happened when the Pope told us to change our laws? Pretty much nothing.

What happened when we went to Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and fought against the people there? Pretty much nothing.

The difference is, when the Pope spoke, at least nobody got killed when nothing happened.


There was a Nun murdered because of what the Pope said.
Can't Touch This!!

#60 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 October 2006 - 02:30 PM

Where do you get this thing about Korea? That ended well for the South Koreans. They still have their own country, we still protect their border. About as good as it was going to get for them.
Can't Touch This!!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Senate, 2006, Sen Bill Frist, Majority Leader, Afghanistan, Taliban

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users