Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon May 10, 2010 4:11 pm



Seymour Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military
Seymour Hersh spoke at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Geneva on April 24, 2010
REPORTER: You didn't include Obama in your list of liar presidents. I'm wondering if you would include him also?
HERSH: To use a basketball or a football analogy, American football, fourth quarter – he may have a game plan. At this point he's in real trouble. Because the military are dominating him on the important issues of the world: Iraq, Iran, Afghan and Pakistan. And he's following the policies of Bush and Cheney almost to a fare-thee-well. He talks differently. And he's much brighter, he's much more of the world. So one only hopes he has a game plan that will include doing something, but he's in real trouble, in terms of – he's in real trouble.
In Iraq I don't have to tell anybody the prospects – in the American press they never mention Moqtada Sadr, but look out. He's going to be the kingmaker of that country. He's now studying in Iran. And he's going to be the next ayatollah-to-be. I don't know how he'll work it out with Sistani. But he's going to be the force, the Shia. And so this is going to be very complicated for us because the two men we talk about, Allawi and Maliki, have about as much to do with the average Iraqi – they're both ex-pats. Allawi, let's see, he was certainly an American agent and a British agent, the MI-6, the CIA, the Jordanians ran him probably for Mossad. I'm not telling you anything that is not a fact. So who knows?
So Iraq is very problematical. There's going to be much more violence. Whether it's civil war or not it's going to be much more violence.
He's never going to win, whatever that means, in Afghanistan. The only solution in Afghanistan is a settlement with the Taliban. And the only person to settle with is Mullah Omar, and he's become another Hitler to the American public. So how we're going to do that and survive politically?
And the same in Pakistan. He's got the wrong policy there. So it is – and again for Obama, Iran's not resolved, in terms of, the Iranians have come out of this crisis stronger than ever. We don't want to believe that.
endeavour
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31140
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby Simulist » Mon May 10, 2010 4:29 pm

Is a person in a sexual liaison who is "on the bottom" really being "dominated" by the person "on the top"?

Depending on the circumstances, I suppose an argument could be made either way. In the case of Obama, he certainly doesn't seem to be an unwilling participant in his tryst with the military.

(If Robert Gibbs were needed to spin this, he'd probably say that Obama is "topping from the bottom.")
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby JackRiddler » Mon May 10, 2010 5:14 pm

There is too much thinking about Obama in this equation.

The Bush regime was a real cabal who could make decisions concerning the empire. The Team B takeover was allowed for a reason, I expect because they were seen by consensus as a necessary phase in preserving the empire in its time of crisis. They were allowed relatively free rein until 2006-2007. Obama is not in a position to make NS decisions other than what the Pentagon wants, so the degree to which he is complicit or forced is a mightily irrelevant question. It comes up mainly among those who want to appear to be fair to "both sides" of the two-party scam. The difference however is that the Bush cabal seized power in contravention of election results, with a specific revolution in mind, which they largely succeeded in implementing before being forced to allow a consolidation under the other party, lest they lose their gains.

In 2008 a majority voted for something and, for a change, were told they got it. Then they were denied it. Now they should demand it, independently of what they imagine Obama may be. Get past the putative heads. Therein lies our collective failure.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14338
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby beeline » Tue May 11, 2010 11:09 am

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=61862

Gates announces major cuts in defense budget

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Tuesday, April 7, 2009


WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday announced sweeping cuts and a significant shift in priorities for next year’s defense budget, with more money for servicemembers and federal employees but less for some major defense contractors.

Calling his plan a “reform budget,” Gates said he would eliminate the $11 billion VH-71 Presidential Helicopter program, end production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 aircraft, negotiate less expansive ways to build three DDG-1000 destroyers and drop the $87 billion vehicle portion of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program.

“I decided I would not take the political issues associated with any of these projects into account,” he said. “I decided I would just do what’s right for this country.”

And while other systems saw large cuts, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will see an increase of $4.4 billion to buy 513 aircraft over the next five years.

Gates also detailed moves designed to strengthen personnel programs and “lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The budget includes $500 million more than fiscal 2009 for recruiting and training helicopter maintenance crews, a major need for current missions overseas. Another $400 million will go towards new medical research, and $300 million more to supplement existing traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder programs.

The military’s special operations forces ranks will be increased by nearly 3,000 next year, and the Pentagon will triple the number of students in its cybersecurity programs. And Gates announced plans to hire up 30,000 new government employees to replace contractor slots over the next five years, 13,000 in 2010 alone.

Last week the House and Senate passed separate budget outlines for fiscal 2010, both calling for about $534 billion in defense spending next year, not including funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s up nearly 4 percent from fiscal 2009 levels.

But both the White House and Congress have promised major changes in defense acquisition this year, and Gates on Monday said this plan represents a call for more fiscal responsibility by defense planners.

“There has been broad agreement on the need for defense acquisition reform,” he said. “We’ve had enough hand-wringing. Now is the time for action.”

Pentagon officials have been tight-lipped about details of the defense budget for weeks. Gates made those involved in the process sign a nondisclosure agreement, and lawmakers did not receive any details until shortly before the public announcement of the plan.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said defense industry leaders weren’t given any advanced notice of the budget cuts.

Gates insisted the new budget does not ignore future threats in order to focus on immediate ones.

He estimated that about 10 percent of the total figure will go toward irregular warfare projects, 50 percent for conventional warfighting, and 40 percent dual-purpose programs.

The budget also plans to hold the Navy’s future aircraft carrier fleet at 10, down from the current 12. That was one of several major cuts for the Navy, including a halt to the CGX cruiser program and a delay in production of an 11th Landing Platform Dock Ship.

But the budget plan would accelerate the purchase of Navy littoral combat ships, which are designed for close-shore support missions. Plans had called for two next year; Now, the Pentagon will buy three and plan for a fleet of 55 in coming years.

Gates said that the missile defense program will also see cuts while officials re-evaluate ground-based interceptor systems.

Those decisions on missile defense come after North Korea’s launch of a long-range missile this weekend. While U.S. officials said North Korea failed to put a satellite into orbit, the test shows that North Korea can successfully fire a two-stage missile, said defense analyst Bruce Bennett for the RAND Corp.

Gates said he does not think the delay in those missile defense system will endanger U.S. forces or allies, noting plans to ramp up purchase of proven programs like the Patriot missile.

While the plan supports the continued growth in Army end strength to 547,000, it would hold the number of brigade combat teams at 45 instead of the planned 48. Gates said the change would allow for better-staffed BCTs, reducing the need for stop-lossed troops to fill in the gaps.

Lawmakers will begin hearings on the defense budget when Congress returns from break later this month.
User avatar
beeline
 
Posts: 2023
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Killadelphia, PA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby 23 » Tue May 11, 2010 11:27 am

Collective failures come in more than one flavor.

For the voter who supported Obama because he fit the ABM (Anyone But McCain) requirement, he is getting exactly what he voted for: a President other than McCain.

So he has no reason to complain or demand anything.

He is getting exactly what he voted for: someone other than McCain.

Which might explain why many, who voted for Obama, are not inclined to demand anything from Obama.

They're satisfied that it isn't McCain in the Oval Office.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby Simulist » Tue May 11, 2010 12:45 pm

Gates announces major cuts in defense budget

That sounds hopeful, Beeline, and I'd like to believe that Gates and Obama are serious.

Had it not been for the numerous other times hopeful-sounding things have come out of the Obama Administration, only to discover nothing there but a pack of lies, I might be inclined to believe this. Maybe even just a little bit.

But as things stand now, the Obama Administration has given up the right to be believed; it's even given up the right to any "benefit of a doubt."

If anything comes from this — anything at all — it will be only to ensure the continuation of the flourishing Empire, not to curtail it.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby sunny » Tue May 11, 2010 1:32 pm

JackRiddler wrote:There is too much thinking about Obama in this equation.

The Bush regime was a real cabal who could make decisions concerning the empire. The Team B takeover was allowed for a reason, I expect because they were seen by consensus as a necessary phase in preserving the empire in its time of crisis. They were allowed relatively free rein until 2006-2007. Obama is not in a position to make NS decisions other than what the Pentagon wants, so the degree to which he is complicit or forced is a mightily irrelevant question. It comes up mainly among those who want to appear to be fair to "both sides" of the two-party scam. The difference however is that the Bush cabal seized power in contravention of election results, with a specific revolution in mind, which they largely succeeded in implementing before being forced to allow a consolidation under the other party, lest they lose their gains.

In 2008 a majority voted for something and, for a change, were told they got it. Then they were denied it. Now they should demand it, independently of what they imagine Obama may be. Get past the putative heads. Therein lies our collective failure.


Quoted for TRUTH.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby chump » Tue May 11, 2010 2:31 pm

If Obama is dominated by the military (like a puppy dog wagging his tail), Who's in charge of the military? I don't mean legally, or technically, but Who is really calling the shots? It seems to me that the most powerful financial factions have the fluctuating ability to take advantage of almost any of the World's various governmental and military infrastructures, mostly through the use of a myriad of long established intelligence, social, and religious networks - such as the one Obama came from. And Bush. Good cop, bad cop. Both of them were chosen to be the US President years before it actually happened. The Republicans didn't even put up a fight!

Did Bushco cut in line and outmaneuver the other guys out of their turn? Or did the PTB just do what was neccesary to instill their guy in office? The agenda that Bush promoted was obviously palatible to a majority of the PTB. The rich got richer; especially Bush's consortium of Oil/MIC/drug fatcats.

It is odd to realize that W was a continuation of Clinton, and Clinton was a continuation of Bush Sr... I suspect those oligarchal factions ally themselves with one and other, and stab each other in the back, change their affiliations, etc., as situations arise and business dictates.The plan most likely to be accepted by, for instance, the Bilderbergers, is the one in which they all benefit the most. The 2000 election was blatantly stolen to kick the plan into high gear. The plan was to systematcally and aggressively funnel power and wealth toward themselves. 9/11 was a signal that the next phase of the plan was a Go.

Despite the hopeful rhetoric of the Obama campaign, the Constitution is still eroding, insurance is still going up, small banks continue to fail, the big ones are flourishing, Wall Street is as corrupt as ever, and the US continues it's unabated military spending - increasing it's military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq... Soon enough, private mercenaries, often paid for by the American taxpayer, will outnumber US troops. Make no mistake about it, they are the Fascists attempting to seize control.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby Simulist » Tue May 11, 2010 2:35 pm

chump wrote:If Obama is dominated by the military (like a puppy dog wagging his tail), Who's in charge of the military? I don't mean legally, or technically, but Who is really calling the shots?

I think his name is Mammon, and he lives in a variety of very powerful hosts in America and around the world.

(I'm kidding, but only slightly.)
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby MinM » Tue May 11, 2010 3:30 pm

Image
Seymour Hersh apparently knows a thing or two about being 'Dominated' by the USG...

http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_8_review.html
...In late 1974, even more friction came between President Ford and Sen. Church. James Jesus Angleton had badly divided the CIA over the Yuri Nosenko affair. In order to force him to resign as counter-intelligence chief, Director Bill Colby had given a story to the CIA friendly Sy Hersh. This story uncovered some of the illegal surveillance operations Angleton had run out of his shop. When exposed at Christmas time in the pages of the NY Times, the story created a sensation. Angleton resigned. Ford called Colby for a briefing. Realizing this would give Frank Church the opening he needed for a full-scale inquiry into the intelligence community, Ford tried to divert that by appointing his VP, Nelson Rockefeller, to run his own inquest. (Schorr, p. 143) Called the Rockefeller Commission, this was seen as something of a whitewash. The report contained an annex on the JFK assassination. But since Ford brought back Warren Commission assistant counsel David Belin as Executive Director, this was viewed as something of a joke: two original cover-up men redoing the cover-up. In fact, the report deliberately distorted the testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht. (See Cover-Up, by Gary Shaw and Larry Harris, p. 29) It was also the first official JFK inquiry to use the goofy "neuromuscular reaction" as a way to explain Kennedy's violent rearward action at the time of the head shot (ibid)

The appointment of Belin indicated Ford's stance during the entire 18 months of what one author has called "the season of inquiry". This refers to the two investigative committees set up in congress: the Pike Committee in the House and the Church Committee in the Senate. They ended up replacing the Rockefeller Commission. This is as close as the USA has ever come to explaining to the public just what the CIA and FBI have done in the name of national security. Who knows what they would have achieved if Ford had not fought them. Why did he resist an open-ended inquiry? It might be that he understood that his work on the Commission could have been exposed for the sham it was. Why do I say that? Because Ford did. On January 16, 1975 he held a White House luncheon for the editors of the NY Times. Someone asked why Ford had picked such a conservative and defense minded panel to make up the Rockefeller Commission (e.g. Ronald Reagan was a member). The president said he needed people who would not stray from the straight and narrow. If they did, they could stumble upon matters that might hurt the national interest. The editor asked "Like what?" Ford replied with, "Like assassinations!" (Schorr, p. 144) Ford added that this was off the record. But reporter Daniel Schorr deduced that since the Rockefeller Commission was investigating domestic matters, Ford must have meant American assassinations. (ibid) But later CIA Director William Colby effectively spun Ford's comment . He told Schorr that the CIA had run assassination plots abroad, but not in America. (ibid) This deftly neutralized Ford's slip. The committees would now look at CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders. In regards to the JFK case, the Church Committee would only investigate the performance of the intelligence agencies in investigating Kennedy's murder.

But even Colby was too much for Ford. He was deemed too open with congress. After all, when mobster Sam Giancana was murdered before testifying, Colby went out of his way to say the CIA had nothing to do with it. (ibid, p. 155) Colby was later fired for being too forthcoming. Ford picked George Bush to replace him. And as further signal of his new "get tough" policy, Ford made a young Dick Cheney his Chief of Staff, and moved Donald Rumsfeld into the Pentagon.

With all these elements in place, Ford decided to use the 1975 murder of a CIA officer as a way to squelch and smear any further investigation. Richard Welch was the CIA station chief in Athens. The CIA and Ford blamed his death on the fact that his name had been exposed by an American journal called Counterspy. In fact, the leftist rebel group who killed him had issued a communiqué beforehand that revealed they knew his name then. (Schorr, p. 191) In a classic case of political propaganda, Ford and the CIA pulled out all the stops in using Welch's funeral as psychological warfare against the committees. Welch's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. But the plane circled the base for 15 minutes to time the landing for the morning news shows. (ibid) Ford attended the chapel service. But the press was barred in order to suggest that they were to blame for Welch's murder. Colby issued a statement saying that Welch's death was the result of a "paranoiac attack on ... Americans serving their country." David Phillips was interviewed by CBS and said, American agents are in less danger today from the KGB than from the "moral primitives" who "condemn my label". (ibid) Welch's body was buried at Arlington with full military honors. His coffin was carried on the same horse-drawn caisson that carried President Kennedy's. Colby gave the flag draped over it to Welch's widow. As Schorr wrote, "This is the CIA's first secret agent to become a pubic national hero." (ibid)

It worked. Henry Kissinger jumped on the committees: "I think they have used classified information in a reckless way ... " (ibid p. 194) Both committees closed up shop shortly after. Ford and the CIA held veto power over what could be published. When Otis Pike defied that agreement, Congress bottled up his report. A copy was smuggled to Daniel Schorr. As he was arranging to have it released, his boss, Bill Paley, lunched with Bush. (ibid, p. 201) The Pike Report was published in a special issue of The Village Voice. Forgetting his own use of classified material for his Oswald book, Ford now proposed an FBI investigation to find out who gave the report to Schorr. (ibid, p. 208) After Paley's meeting with Director Bush, Schorr was taken off the air by CBS. After a two hour impromptu interrogation – during which he was not represented by counsel – Schorr was fired by the network. He was later investigated by the House but refused to reveal his source for the report...

http://www.ctka.net/turner-christian.html
Random House was sold to Si Newhouse-Roy Cohn's family friend-Bob Loomis's star ascended, and Epstein's began to fade. As readers of Probe know, Loomis was once married to the secretary for James Angleton. He has been a mentor and shepherd for the likes of Sy Hersh, James Phelan, and Gerald Posner. In other words, he is dedicated to upholding the official story no matter how porous it may be. When asked why the Turner/Christian book was burned, Loomis replied, as Daryl Gates did about the disposal of crime scene evidence, "To make space for others. They do that with books."...

http://www.ctka.net/brothers.html
The book features a good discussion of the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. In this section he is explicit about the duplicity of Richard Helms in attempting to switch the blame for those plots from the CIA to the Kennedys. (pgs 87-88) He neatly notes that Helms had photos of all the presidents he served except Kennedy's. He even notes that Helms in death, was still deceptive about those plots in his posthumous memoir. (p. 110) A deft stroke by Talbot in this regard is his (further) exposure of Sy Hersh's hatchet job, The Dark Side of Camelot. He notes how Hersh was so cozy with the CIA in his writing of this book that he trusted covert operator Sam Halpern.

Halpern told Hersh that RFK used the late Charles Ford to activate Mafia assets in Cuba to destabilize, and even kill, Castro. Talbot found a Church Committee memorandum by Ford. In discussing his interview with them he explained that his meetings with RFK on Cuba were about "the efforts of a Cuban exile group to foment an anti-Castro uprising, not on Mafia assassination plots." (p. 123) Talbot properly concludes that Helms and Halpern "fabricated their story about Bobby Kennedy and the Mafia ... Officials like Helms and Halpern tried to deflect public outrage over their unseemly collusion by pinning the blame on the late attorney general."...

http://www.ctka.net/posner_jd4.html
Finally, let us consider Seymour Hersh and his embarrassment of a book on the Kennedy presidency, The Dark Side of Camelot. Hersh is a darling of the so-called liberal print media. People like Jacob Weisberg and Eric Alterman defended his career and his awful book when it was being attacked in so many quarters when it came out in 1997. These commentators, and just about everyone else, ignored the fact that Hersh's career has always been quite questionable in his relationship to the CIA and his reliance on sources there. Also, that from the beginning Hersh's book publishing career has been advanced by Bob Loomis. This whole rather strange career with Loomis and the questionable judgments and maneuvers Hersh has done in that career are examined in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X (pgs. 364-373)...

http://www.ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby sunny » Tue May 11, 2010 5:05 pm

In a classic case of political propaganda, Ford and the CIA pulled out all the stops in using Welch's funeral as psychological warfare against the committees. Welch's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. But the plane circled the base for 15 minutes to time the landing for the morning news shows. (ibid) Ford attended the chapel service. But the press was barred in order to suggest that they were to blame for Welch's murder. Colby issued a statement saying that Welch's death was the result of a "paranoiac attack on ... Americans serving their country." David Phillips was interviewed by CBS and said, American agents are in less danger today from the KGB than from the "moral primitives" who "condemn my label". (ibid) Welch's body was buried at Arlington with full military honors. His coffin was carried on the same horse-drawn caisson that carried President Kennedy's. Colby gave the flag draped over it to Welch's widow. As Schorr wrote, "This is the CIA's first secret agent to become a pubic national hero." (ibid)


Why didn't they just piss on the president's grave as they drove by?

Talbot properly concludes that Helms and Halpern "fabricated their story about Bobby Kennedy and the Mafia ... Officials like Helms and Halpern tried to deflect public outrage over their unseemly collusion by pinning the blame on the late attorney general."...


Why didn't they just dig him up and put his corpse on trial?

Vile, inhuman, flesh eating ghouls. :evil:
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Hersh on Obama Being "Dominated" by the U.S. Military

Postby sunny » Tue May 11, 2010 5:07 pm

In a classic case of political propaganda, Ford and the CIA pulled out all the stops in using Welch's funeral as psychological warfare against the committees. Welch's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. But the plane circled the base for 15 minutes to time the landing for the morning news shows. (ibid) Ford attended the chapel service. But the press was barred in order to suggest that they were to blame for Welch's murder. Colby issued a statement saying that Welch's death was the result of a "paranoiac attack on ... Americans serving their country." David Phillips was interviewed by CBS and said, American agents are in less danger today from the KGB than from the "moral primitives" who "condemn my label". (ibid) Welch's body was buried at Arlington with full military honors. His coffin was carried on the same horse-drawn caisson that carried President Kennedy's. Colby gave the flag draped over it to Welch's widow. As Schorr wrote, "This is the CIA's first secret agent to become a pubic national hero." (ibid)


Why didn't they just piss on the president's grave as they drove by?

Talbot properly concludes that Helms and Halpern "fabricated their story about Bobby Kennedy and the Mafia ... Officials like Helms and Halpern tried to deflect public outrage over their unseemly collusion by pinning the blame on the late attorney general."...


Why didn't they just dig Bobby up and put his corpse on trial?

Vile, inhuman, flesh eating ghouls. :evil:
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests