HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

10th Anniversary of the Iraq War

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2013, 07:41 PM
  #1
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,103
vCash: 500
10th Anniversary of the Iraq War

To no surprise the neo-cons still defend their decision to invade Iraq:

Quote:
One notable exception was the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the neo-conservative stronghold whose pre-war “black coffee briefings” and close ties to Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld ensured its “scholars” a leading role in both promoting and actually planning the invasion and subsequent occupation – under the careful guidance of Ahmad Chalabi, the exiled Iraqi banker and confidence man who had hoped to be installed as the country’s new president.

In a one-hour briefing Tuesday afternoon that dwelled heavily on the supposed “success” of the 2007 so-called surge of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to prevent Iraq from falling into an all-out sectarian civil war, AEI associates, joined by Sen. John McCain, defended their advice throughout the war.

They have also run a flurry of op-eds published this past week, including one for FoxNews by former Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, entitled “Iraq War taught us tough lessons, but world is better off without Saddam Hussein.”

Wolfowitz, a key architect of the war and major backer of Chalabi, argued that Washington should have adopted a Surge-like counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy much earlier in the war, a particularly ironic observation given his very public denunciation on the eve of the war of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then-Army chief of staff, who warned Congress of the need for several hundred thousand troops to keep the peace after the U.S. invasion.

Indeed, the war’s defenders – mostly neo-conservatives and aggressive nationalists, like Cheney and former U.N. Amb. John Bolton, another AEI “scholar” – spent most of the past week insisting that they had done nothing wrong.

“If I had to do it over again, I’d do it in a minute,” Cheney told an interviewer about invading Iraq in a television biography that aired last Friday.

Like his fellow hawks, the former vice president insisted that U.S. and other intelligence services were convinced that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that he was theoretically prepared to give to terrorists – and that, in the wake of 9/11 – justified the invasion.

Indeed, the notion that the only flaw in the decision to go to war was “bad intelligence” has become a mantra of the war’s defenders who, like Wolfowitz, appear to miss the irony of their complaints, given their own interference in the intelligence process in the run-up to the war.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline...0]Full Article

Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 07:59 PM
  #2
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,788
vCash: 500
Does anyone doubt that future historians will look at the Persian Gulf War, the sanctions/bombings/no-fly zones and the invasion as one unique event? I'm sick of people trying to lump everything on Bush by refusing to look at the continuity of violence inflicted on the Iraqi's but no less than 4 consecutive American administrations. War is, has been, and always will be a bi-partisan affair in this country.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 08:12 PM
  #3
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Does anyone doubt that future historians will look at the Persian Gulf War, the sanctions/bombings/no-fly zones and the invasion as one unique event? I'm sick of people trying to lump everything on Bush by refusing to look at the continuity of violence inflicted on the Iraqi's but no less than 4 consecutive American administrations. War is, has been, and always will be a bi-partisan affair in this country.
Well the sanctions were bad, but I don't know why you'd blame Clinton for enforcing the no-fly zone.

And why would you give Obama any of the blame for Iraq? That's odd.

Ugmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 08:32 PM
  #4
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Does anyone doubt that future historians will look at the Persian Gulf War, the sanctions/bombings/no-fly zones and the invasion as one unique event? I'm sick of people trying to lump everything on Bush by refusing to look at the continuity of violence inflicted on the Iraqi's but no less than 4 consecutive American administrations. War is, has been, and always will be a bi-partisan affair in this country.
Fair point.

Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 08:56 PM
  #5
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Does anyone doubt that future historians will look at the Persian Gulf War, the sanctions/bombings/no-fly zones and the invasion as one unique event? I'm sick of people trying to lump everything on Bush by refusing to look at the continuity of violence inflicted on the Iraqi's but no less than 4 consecutive American administrations. War is, has been, and always will be a bi-partisan affair in this country.
It's possible that you could look at the Persian Gulf War and the aftermath as one event. Like World War I and World War II is seen as both a continuous but also separate events.

Clinton (and many Democrats) did not want to escalate the war, nor did they. They threw a few missiles at Saddam, rattled their sabres a bit but for the most part, left the Iraqis simply to themselves, for better or worse. Bush/Cheney/Republicans escalated the conflict and destabilized the region even more so than before. Bush deserves a TON of criticism over his handling on the situation.

It's funny Johnson/Kennedy get a lot of criticism over our involvement in Vietnam and escalation of the war but Bush is defended for escalating the issue with Iraq?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 09:36 PM
  #6
Garo
Registered User
 
Garo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montréal
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Does anyone doubt that future historians will look at the Persian Gulf War, the sanctions/bombings/no-fly zones and the invasion as one unique event?
Kinda, yes. It would be limited in the sense that you wouldn't quite get all the perspectives you can have when you look at it with several different views.

Garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:58 AM
  #7
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,894
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Does anyone doubt that future historians will look at the Persian Gulf War, the sanctions/bombings/no-fly zones and the invasion as one unique event? I'm sick of people trying to lump everything on Bush by refusing to look at the continuity of violence inflicted on the Iraqi's but no less than 4 consecutive American administrations. War is, has been, and always will be a bi-partisan affair in this country.
Well it was a bi-partisan effort to move ahead with the war, but really how bi-partisan would it be if Bush wasn't constantly waiving around supposedly concrete intelligence that Saddam had WMD's and was prepared to use them against America?

That's kind of the main counterpoint to the whole Iraq war thing, that Bush's 'intelligence' was pretty much fabricated and full of ****. Some people would have been against the war regardless but I'd imagine a whole lot of the support was based entirely on the presence of the WMD threat.

RandV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 02:43 AM
  #8
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
WarriorOfGandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,979
vCash: 500

WarriorOfGandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 05:38 AM
  #9
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Well it was a bi-partisan effort to move ahead with the war, but really how bi-partisan would it be if Bush wasn't constantly waiving around supposedly concrete intelligence that Saddam had WMD's and was prepared to use them against America?
I am not sure how bi-partisant it genuinely was, though. We were right in the middle of the War on Terror, and the democrats were getting their ***** whooped in public opinion as apparently not able to defend the US against their enemies. Just like they approved any defense budget raise in the Cold War, they were forced by political rhetoric to go ahead with it.

Notice how Obama could clamor not having supported War in Iraq, but he wasn't Senator at the time, so he didn't have to vote on it. A very nice loophole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
That's kind of the main counterpoint to the whole Iraq war thing, that Bush's 'intelligence' was pretty much fabricated and full of ****. Some people would have been against the war regardless but I'd imagine a whole lot of the support was based entirely on the presence of the WMD threat.
Well, I am not 100% sure they genuinely INVENTED the intelligence. I believe they simply had reached the conclusion they wanted to reach. They dismissed warning signs of the unreliability of much of the intelligence, and the inter-departmental committee who concluded that SH was close to developing nuclear weapons did not actually pooled their intel. They each reached a conclusion and voted on the report; not explaining why they reached their conclusion.

Best example is; I think it's the State Department who concluded to Iraq being close to having nukes based on some sort of enricher gizmo; that's the piece of evidence that tipped their decision.

The Department of Energy actually dismissed the gizmo as useless to develop a nuke, and based their conclusion on evidence the State Department did no considered proof.

It's basically a case were everybody based their decision on their level of incompetence due to top-down pressure by the high-Executive.


I really don't think anybody genuinely faked evidence.

PricePkPatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 08:18 AM
  #10
bombers15
Registered User
 
bombers15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,013
vCash: 500
An absolute disaster on every level.

I was fully against it in 2003 and that position hasn't changed.

bombers15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 09:09 AM
  #11
Nightslyr
Registered User
 
Nightslyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,855
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Nightslyr
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombers15 View Post
An absolute disaster on every level.

I was fully against it in 2003 and that position hasn't changed.
Same here. It wasn't hard to predict that it would be an absolute cluster****.

One of the tragedies coming from this is that we've been at war in the region for over a decade, and it barely feels like a blip on the radar. Aside from an occasional casualty count and those "Let's look as a military parent surprises their child at school" events, it's widely ignored. No idea of progress, or goals, or anything. Just more bodies to the grinder.

It's sad that, no matter the administration, the military industrial complex still runs amok, bolstered by a complicit media.

Nightslyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:02 AM
  #12
deytookerjaabs
Registered Smut User
 
deytookerjaabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,833
vCash: 500
Forget about that old war, Obama just made sure to let us all know that he and Netenyahu will leave "all options on the table" if those EVIL Iranian folks get a big scary bomb.

deytookerjaabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 08:31 PM
  #13
rebel diamond
Registered User
 
rebel diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 5,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombers15 View Post
An absolute disaster on every level.

I was fully against it in 2003 and that position hasn't changed.
I'll own up to being somewhat pro-war in 2003. I believed Canada had made the wrong decision in not joining the American-led coalition, and even though I did not truly see the necessity of the war I believed many of the WMD claims and thought that we would be better off participating in a short conflict to hold the line with our allies. I was wrong then, and it astounds me that there are still people out there who haven't realized that they were wrong for supporting the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld deception.

rebel diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:59 PM
  #14
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,894
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
I am not sure how bi-partisant it genuinely was, though. We were right in the middle of the War on Terror, and the democrats were getting their ***** whooped in public opinion as apparently not able to defend the US against their enemies. Just like they approved any defense budget raise in the Cold War, they were forced by political rhetoric to go ahead with it.

Notice how Obama could clamor not having supported War in Iraq, but he wasn't Senator at the time, so he didn't have to vote on it. A very nice loophole.



Well, I am not 100% sure they genuinely INVENTED the intelligence. I believe they simply had reached the conclusion they wanted to reach. They dismissed warning signs of the unreliability of much of the intelligence, and the inter-departmental committee who concluded that SH was close to developing nuclear weapons did not actually pooled their intel. They each reached a conclusion and voted on the report; not explaining why they reached their conclusion.

Best example is; I think it's the State Department who concluded to Iraq being close to having nukes based on some sort of enricher gizmo; that's the piece of evidence that tipped their decision.

The Department of Energy actually dismissed the gizmo as useless to develop a nuke, and based their conclusion on evidence the State Department did no considered proof.

It's basically a case were everybody based their decision on their level of incompetence due to top-down pressure by the high-Executive.


I really don't think anybody genuinely faked evidence.
No they didn't exactly fake any evidence. But when the President instructs his intelligence people to go out there and don't come back until you have something/anything showing that they have WMD's and are ready to use them, then take the intellectually dishonest results in front of the world and present them as 'we have concrete evidence that Saddam is building WMD's for use against America' to justify an invasion... well then it's really just a matter of semantics.

RandV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:08 PM
  #15
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,894
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel diamond View Post
I'll own up to being somewhat pro-war in 2003. I believed Canada had made the wrong decision in not joining the American-led coalition, and even though I did not truly see the necessity of the war I believed many of the WMD claims and thought that we would be better off participating in a short conflict to hold the line with our allies. I was wrong then, and it astounds me that there are still people out there who haven't realized that they were wrong for supporting the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld deception.
Pretty much the same for me. I wasn't interest in Canada joining since the majority of the country was already against it and we were pulling plenty of weight in Afghanistan already (we don't exactly have a military that can deploy in multiple countries), but with the 'facts' presented as they were I certainly wasn't against the American's going in.

I was pretty damn busy at the time in college though up to my neck in programming assignments so I wasn't really paying that close attention to it. Throughout high school I had a great Social Studies/History teacher, when the Kosovo crisis was in the news he had us do an assignment where we watched American news then researched some Serbian news outlets online and write a report comparing the differences. He always emphasized that with these things you have to look at both sides of the story and try to filter out bias, something I took away as a life lesson, but never had the time to do my due diligence for my opinion leading up to the Iraq war.

Not that my opinion would matter for anything, but it would have prevented me from feeling dirty in hindsight when the truth started to come out.

RandV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:44 AM
  #16
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 8,959
vCash: 500
On HF, there were only a handful of posters who were against the Iraq War in 2003. Most were for it, the rest were on the fence. It was probably more difficult for an American to post against the war as it was considered unpatriotic doing so as the war drums were beating. The amount of disinformation was ridiculous, and as the years went on it was almost strange watching people finally disconnect Iraq and revenge for 9/11, let alone finally give up on WMDs. Some people today still believe the story they found WMDs. It really wasn't until Katrina in 2005 that it was politically safe for many to speak out against the wartime Preznit. A lot more people today will tell you they were always against the Iraq War but you wouldn't have been able to judge that for instance given the barometer of opinions on this message board.

p.s. the truth was out there in 2003, it was just difficult trying to get folks to see it
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm


Last edited by Puck: 03-22-2013 at 04:42 AM.
Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 02:12 PM
  #17
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 15,091
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
I also remember it like Puck, the war was pretty popular here in the beginning. I was also one of those supporting it, unfortunately. I think it has been a valuable lesson, albeit one delivered at a cost far too high.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:18 PM
  #18
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
Well the sanctions were bad, but I don't know why you'd blame Clinton for enforcing the no-fly zone.

And why would you give Obama any of the blame for Iraq? That's odd.
And what exactly was the "no-fly zone?" Where did its authority and legitimacy reside?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Fair point.
I think failure to see the continuity blinds us all about the real, underlying, and bi-partisan desire to control the Middle East.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
It's possible that you could look at the Persian Gulf War and the aftermath as one event. Like World War I and World War II is seen as both a continuous but also separate events.

Clinton (and many Democrats) did not want to escalate the war, nor did they. They threw a few missiles at Saddam, rattled their sabres a bit but for the most part, left the Iraqis simply to themselves, for better or worse. Bush/Cheney/Republicans escalated the conflict and destabilized the region even more so than before. Bush deserves a TON of criticism over his handling on the situation.

It's funny Johnson/Kennedy get a lot of criticism over our involvement in Vietnam and escalation of the war but Bush is defended for escalating the issue with Iraq?
U.S. sanctions -- the bulk of which were under Clinton -- witnessed the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and untold hardship for millions more. We can debate the numbers, but the idea that he just "threw" a couple bombs over there skews and distorts a more brutish, harsh reality. Bin Laden went so far as to invoke this as a reason for Jihad against the United States. From a PR perspective, that message resonates throughout the region. It's a nasty blight on our historical record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garo View Post
Kinda, yes. It would be limited in the sense that you wouldn't quite get all the perspectives you can have when you look at it with several different views.
And I'd rather not lose important historical nuances, so I agree that a total blurring of the lines could be counterproductive.

But at the same time, it's obvious to me that Dubya didn't wake up one day and say "I'm gonna take Iraq." The economic, political, legal, and military infrastructure was already in place to allow the U.S. to disperse Hussein, who was (a) clearly doing exactly what the U.N. demanded of him (no WMD) and therefore (b) in possession of a rag tag army and nation, both shells of what they were before 1990 (which wasn't all that to begin with after 8 years of nonsense with Iran) because of the sanctions.

We as a nation need to stop thinking of every new administration as a "paradigm shift" where there is a radical new vision and method on the prowl ready to upend all that was hitherto known. Nah, **** that, these guys are more like CEO's, and the goal is to manage the business and make the shareholders money.

And if that's the case, I say Bush, Clinton, Bush 2.0, Obama -- Mission Accomplished!

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:48 PM
  #19
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 8,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
I also remember it like Puck, the war was pretty popular here in the beginning. I was also one of those supporting it, unfortunately. I think it has been a valuable lesson, albeit one delivered at a cost far too high.
Did you change your HFname over time?

In those days, the mods were much more strict. I remember posting with Chicpea against the war. He was a bit more emotional than I was and he got banned around the time of the attack on Fallujah in late 2004. There was some political antagonism in those days even between the mods, so I won't mention names. Another poster Daedalus (not a mod) was very patient and spent a lot of time engaging Republican posters in a calm manner (I think he was libertarian, so I think that's where I developed a degree respect for that group (despite the economics)).

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 03:52 PM
  #20
Transplanted Caper
Registered User
 
Transplanted Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Internet Underbelly
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Did you change your HFname over time?

In those days, the mods were much more strict. I remember posting with Chicpea against the war. He was a bit more emotional than I was and he got banned around the time of the attack on Fallujah in late 2004. There was some political antagonism in those days even between the mods, so I won't mention names. Another poster Daedalus (not a mod) was very patient and spent a lot of time engaging Republican posters in a calm manner (I think he was libertarian, so I think that's where I developed a degree respect for that group (despite the economics)).
I don't think I was posting there then, but admittedly I was a cheerleader for the war back in 2003. It didn't take me long to fall off that bandwagon though, although I should have done me due diligence and never gotten on in the first place.

Transplanted Caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 04:02 PM
  #21
Jatt
Registered User
 
Jatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 675
vCash: 500
According the World Health Organization, the biggest health threat in Iraq before the first Gulf War was obesity.

Jatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 04:34 PM
  #22
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 8,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper View Post
I don't think I was posting there then, but admittedly I was a cheerleader for the war back in 2003. It didn't take me long to fall off that bandwagon though, although I should have done me due diligence and never gotten on in the first place.
Don't feel bad, I think it was a really difficult time to get good information on commercial media, most were being flag waivers (the safe route). I had already had the experience of going along with the first Iraq War (the good one I guess) but had still got a bad taste on the huge disinformation machine (learned to keep my guard up). By 2003, I had a more diversified portfolio of news sources and wasn't eating commercial versions of news anymore.

It is difficult trying to stay well-informed. The internet is going the pay route too now. Eventually there might be 2 types of citizens, those who pay for good advice and informed content and those who get the cheap free stuff from biased partisan pundits on free commercial media. Sad really. (even Google news is turning crap, I think the big commercial outlets know how to game the Google algorithms and get their stuff out on top). You really have to try to go outside the box to get good info.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 07:21 PM
  #23
RonFournier
Registered User
 
RonFournier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,459
vCash: 500
It was a ridiculous idea at the time and it got even worse now.

History will look at this whole 1990-20?? period as the US militarization of petrol in the Middle East. Afghanistan, Irak, Algeria (replacing a democratically elected party with a military regime, which provoked the civil war), maybe Iran, etc.


Last edited by RonFournier: 03-22-2013 at 07:57 PM.
RonFournier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 07:51 PM
  #24
Tim Calhoun
Tim Calhoun
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,135
vCash: 50
I also supported the war at the time, but I was still a teenager and my political views have changed completely since then.

Tim Calhoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 10:15 PM
  #25
invictus
Registered User
 
invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,481
vCash: 500
I was in high school at the time in a small, rural, and very conservative town in the Midwest. I remember distinctly actually writing a paper against the war. Being that it was a high school paper, it wasn't the most amazing thing, but it was as well-reasoned as someone could have wanted at that level. The teacher gave me a C- and said he was disappointed in me, haha.

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.