If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 25

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

2012-02-22 19:00:05

#351

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Nah...just watching the news. You should try it sometime.
Ah OK, I was referring to the discussion in this thread.

I was relating the thread topic (and your "US sucks and is the puppet of teh Joos" rant) to current events. Which happen to show that your view is bollocks.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-22 23:32:57

#352

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6410|what

Never fight a land war in Asia.

2012-02-23 00:51:45

#353

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Nah...just watching the news. You should try it sometime.
Ah OK, I was referring to the discussion in this thread.
I was relating the thread topic (and your "US sucks and is the puppet of teh Joos" rant) to current events. Which happen to show that your view is bollocks.

Nope, you misread my post in the context of the thread, and nope, animosity to Iran and Iraq are essentially support for Israel, any Republican President would jump at the chance to bomb Iran on Israel's behalf, Iraq already having been done.

Even Obama may forced to join in on an attack on Iran to have a chance of being re-elected.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-23 01:09:07)

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 00:55:36

#354

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6410|what

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Nah...just watching the news. You should try it sometime.
Ah OK, I was referring to the discussion in this thread.
I was relating the thread topic (and your "US sucks and is the puppet of teh Joos" rant) to current events. Which happen to show that your view is bollocks.

Guess you don't follow much politics. The repubs debate was focused on iran, Syria and helping Israel not get nuked. Pre emptive strike was even mentioned by a few candidates. The only one not wanting to invade Iran is Paul, the others will tell you Israel is 'mericas greatest ally ever surrounded by evil Palestinians. Syria is the puppet of Iran too, apparently.

They sure love talking up Iran as some great boogeyman, then say Iran thinks the US is Satan so they are the bad guys.

Or am I wrong and just completely misread the "rhetoric"? They are just playing up for the repubs base of loons I guess?

2012-02-23 01:26:47

#355

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

AussieReaper wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Ah OK, I was referring to the discussion in this thread.
I was relating the thread topic (and your "US sucks and is the puppet of teh Joos" rant) to current events. Which happen to show that your view is bollocks.
Guess you don't follow much politics. The repubs debate was focused on iran, Syria and helping Israel not get nuked.

I follow politics quite closely...I've just stopped watching the debates, like a lot of my countrymen.

Pre emptive strike was even mentioned by a few candidates. The only one not wanting to invade Iran is Paul, the others will tell you Israel is 'mericas greatest ally ever surrounded by evil Palestinians. Syria is the puppet of Iran too, apparently.

For the 100th time...

preemptive (or any other type of) strike =/= invasion

Syria works closely with Iran on many different issues. Are they Iran's puppet? I suppose if you buy into the theory that any coincidence of interests with another country means you are that country's puppet, then yeah. Unless the candidates actually used that terminology (which I doubt), then you are simply inferring an incorrect position.

They sure love talking up Iran as some great boogeyman, then say Iran thinks the US is Satan so they are the bad guys.

If Iran wasn't saying that stuff and was cooperating fully with the IAEA to validate a civilian-only program, I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be saying dick about them.

Or am I wrong and just completely misread the "rhetoric"? They are just playing up for the repubs base of loons I guess?

Yes and yes. They are trying to show they are strong on defense, which is a trademark of the republican party. As opposed to "the...base of loons."

Fortunately, a 2-minute clip during a debate by a candidate (as opposed to an incumbent) does not national policy make.

Dilbert wrote:
Nope, you misread my post in the context of the thread

I'm pretty sure I didn't misread anything.

, and nope, animosity to Iran and Iraq are essentially support for Israel, any Republican President would jump at the chance to bomb Iran on Israel's behalf, Iraq already having been done.

What else do the voices tell you?

The fact that you can't comprehend that a country--particularly the only superpower in the world--would have interests that aren't tied to the whims of a tiny country halfway around the world (except by coincidence) is getting sad.

I suppose that since the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the GCC countries are all taking the same position wrt Iran that Israel controls their foreign policy and global/regional interests as well, right? Because the GCC countries are sooo in love with Israel...

Again, facts don't support your nonsensical, conspiratorial ranting.

Even Obama may forced to join in on an attack on Iran to have a chance of being re-elected.

The old "October surprise" conspiracy. I guess it's a good thing that you don't let reality stand in the way of your theories. Otherwise, this board would be a lot less interesting.

2012-02-23 01:35:37

#356

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
preemptive (or any other type of) strike =/= invasion

So what?

I suppose if you buy into the theory that any coincidence of interests with another country means you are that country's puppet, then yeah.

How do America's interests 'coincide' with Israel's on this?

Is Iran likely to nuke America?

More so than Pakistan, which already has nukes?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-23 01:38:12)

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 01:40:38

#357

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6931|Canberra, AUS

Iran is much more likely to close the Strait of Hormuz, which would be a strategic move on the order below nuclear attack IMO.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-02-23 01:49:45

#358

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Apparently its fine for us to be applying sanctions and preventing countries doing business with Iran, its 'no fair' for them to choke the oil supply and prevent other countries doing business.

We should have worked with Iran and brought them into the democratic fold, not pursued armageddon.

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 02:09:17

#359

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6931|Canberra, AUS

If countries don't want to do business with Iran it's their choice.

Unless you are a complete tosser you cannot justify the disintegration the world economy by closing that strip of water.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-02-23 03:17:38

#360

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6410|what

FEOS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Guess you don't follow much politics. The repubs debate was focused on iran, Syria and helping Israel not get nuked.
I follow politics quite closely...I've just stopped watching the debates, like a lot of my countrymen.

Well then, allow me to retort. The repubs debate was focused on iran, Syria and helping Israel not get nuked.

FEOS wrote:
Pre emptive strike was even mentioned by a few candidates. The only one not wanting to invade Iran is Paul, the others will tell you Israel is 'mericas greatest ally ever surrounded by evil Palestinians. Syria is the puppet of Iran too, apparently.
For the 100th time...

preemptive (or any other type of) strike =/= invasion

Didn't say it was.

FEOS wrote:
Syria works closely with Iran on many different issues. Are they Iran's puppet? I suppose if you buy into the theory that any coincidence of interests with another country means you are that country's puppet, then yeah. Unless the candidates actually used that terminology (which I doubt), then you are simply inferring an incorrect position.

Well I sure got told. Inferring an incorrect position? What are you basing that on? The Repub debate that you didn't watch?

Here's the transcript if you'd care to read it. Highlighted the part I was inferring my incorrect position from.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … se.05.html

Santorum wrote:
SANTORUM: Syria is a puppet state of Iran. They are a threat not just to Israel, but they have been a complete destabilizing force within Lebanon, which is another problem for Israel and Hezbollah. They are a country that we can do no worse than the leadership in Syria today, which is not the case, and some of the other countries that we readily got ourselves involved in.

Maybe you missed it, but I think he said "Syria is a puppet state of Iran".

FEOS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
They sure love talking up Iran as some great boogeyman, then say Iran thinks the US is Satan so they are the bad guys.
If Iran wasn't saying that stuff and was cooperating fully with the IAEA to validate a civilian-only program, I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be saying dick about them.

You're threatening war because Israel wants you to. Iran do not have nukes. Israel coesn't comply with the IAEA at all, and they do have nukes. You're not saying dick about them, though.

Allow me to quote Willard

ROMNEY wrote:
I agree with both these gentlemen. It's very interesting that you're seeing, on the Republican platform, a very strong commitment to say we're going to say no to Iran. It's unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

And -- and Rick is absolutely right. Syria is their key ally. It's their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea. Syria provides a -- a shadow over Lebanon. Syria is providing the armament of Hezbollah in Lebanon that, of course, threatens Israel, our friend and ally.

Who did he mention? Could have sworn it was Israel. Yep, it was. Your friend and ally. Syria is against Israel according to the Republicans.

How closely are they tied to Iran though? Well, let's look at Santorum, he's a smart guy.

Sontorum wrote:
I think it's the timidness (sic) of this president in dealing with the Iranian threat, because Syria and Iran is an axis.

Well, shit. An axis. He went one step short of calling it an axis of evil, but there you go.

FEOS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Or am I wrong and just completely misread the "rhetoric"? They are just playing up for the repubs base of loons I guess?
Yes and yes. They are trying to show they are strong on defense, which is a trademark of the republican party. As opposed to "the...base of loons."

Fortunately, a 2-minute clip during a debate by a candidate (as opposed to an incumbent) does not national policy make.

Defense? This looks like offense to me. But as you said, all the talk of "If I were President I would bomb Iran" is only rhetoric. We can ignore it completely. Thanks!

2012-02-23 04:11:07

#361

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:
If countries don't want to do business with Iran it's their choice.

Unless you are a complete tosser you cannot justify the disintegration the world economy by closing that strip of water.

Yeah you can, 'the world' disintegrated Iraq's economy - which only affected the average citizen, now we're disintegrating Iran's economy - which will only affect the average citizen.

Why can't they retaliate and disintegrate the world economy.

Only tossers complain 'no fair' when they get back exactly what they dish out.

AR wrote:
But as you said, all the talk of "If I were President I would bomb Iran" is only rhetoric. We can ignore it completely.

When America threatens to nuke Iran thats rhetoric.

When Iran says it would be better all round if Israel had never existed - thats a direct threat to nuke Israel and we must show we take it seriously by nuking Iran immediately. We can't have people in the ME nuking each other, unless its Israel doing the nuking.

You really fail at geo-political understanding.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-23 04:14:02)

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 04:15:00

#362

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6931|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
Spark wrote:
If countries don't want to do business with Iran it's their choice.

Unless you are a complete tosser you cannot justify the disintegration the world economy by closing that strip of water.
Yeah you can, 'the world' disintegrated Iraq's economy - which only affected the average citizen, now we're disintegrating Iran's economy - which will only affect the average citizen.

Why can't they retaliate and disintegrate the world economy.

Only tossers complain 'no fair' when they get back exactly what they dish out.

Wow.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-02-23 04:19:51

#363

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Whats the problem?

Iran hasn't done anything to anyone, and we're threatening to level the place, how is that not 'wow' worthy?

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 04:21:00

#364

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

AussieReaper wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Pre emptive strike was even mentioned by a few candidates. The only one not wanting to invade Iran is Paul, the others will tell you Israel is 'mericas greatest ally ever surrounded by evil Palestinians. Syria is the puppet of Iran too, apparently.
For the 100th time...

preemptive (or any other type of) strike =/= invasion
Didn't say it was.

ORLY?

Gee. Looks like you did.

FEOS wrote:
Syria works closely with Iran on many different issues. Are they Iran's puppet? I suppose if you buy into the theory that any coincidence of interests with another country means you are that country's puppet, then yeah. Unless the candidates actually used that terminology (which I doubt), then you are simply inferring an incorrect position.
Well I sure got told. Inferring an incorrect position? What are you basing that on? The Repub debate that you didn't watch?

Here's the transcript if you'd care to read it. Highlighted the part I was inferring my incorrect position from.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … se.05.html

Santorum wrote:
SANTORUM: Syria is a puppet state of Iran. They are a threat not just to Israel, but they have been a complete destabilizing force within Lebanon, which is another problem for Israel and Hezbollah. They are a country that we can do no worse than the leadership in Syria today, which is not the case, and some of the other countries that we readily got ourselves involved in.
Maybe you missed it, but I think he said "Syria is a puppet state of Iran".

Highlighted for those with poor reading comprehension.

And a single candidate does not equate to the entire panel, btw.

FEOS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
They sure love talking up Iran as some great boogeyman, then say Iran thinks the US is Satan so they are the bad guys.
If Iran wasn't saying that stuff and was cooperating fully with the IAEA to validate a civilian-only program, I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be saying dick about them.
You're threatening war because Israel wants you to. Iran do not have nukes. Israel coesn't comply with the IAEA at all, and they do have nukes. You're not saying dick about them, though.

Who's threatening war? Did you mean the EU-3, GCC nations and the US when you said "you"?

Israel's security is a tangential concern in this. If your "theory" were correct, that means Israel controls all those other countries along with the US, as well. Are you willing to go out on that logical limb?

Allow me to quote Willard
ROMNEY wrote:
I agree with both these gentlemen. It's very interesting that you're seeing, on the Republican platform, a very strong commitment to say we're going to say no to Iran. It's unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

And -- and Rick is absolutely right. Syria is their key ally. It's their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea. Syria provides a -- a shadow over Lebanon. Syria is providing the armament of Hezbollah in Lebanon that, of course, threatens Israel, our friend and ally.
Who did he mention? Could have sworn it was Israel. Yep, it was. Your friend and ally. Syria is against Israel according to the Republicans.

How closely are they tied to Iran though? Well, let's look at Santorum, he's a smart guy.

Sontorum wrote:
I think it's the timidness (sic) of this president in dealing with the Iranian threat, because Syria and Iran is an axis.
Well, shit. An axis. He went one step short of calling it an axis of evil, but there you go.

Are you seriously arguing that Romney's description is incorrect? Iran has other Arab countries allied with it? Syria doesn't support Hezbollah, who threaten Israel?

Oh, damn. Pesky facts.

God forbid one of the candidates describes the issue in more complex terms than "we're gonna bomb Iran". Oh, I'm sorry...I guess they were saying "invade", weren't they? Same thing, right?

FEOS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Or am I wrong and just completely misread the "rhetoric"? They are just playing up for the repubs base of loons I guess?
Yes and yes. They are trying to show they are strong on defense, which is a trademark of the republican party. As opposed to "the...base of loons."

Fortunately, a 2-minute clip during a debate by a candidate (as opposed to an incumbent) does not national policy make.
Defense? This looks like offense to me. But as you said, all the talk of "If I were President I would bomb Iran" is only rhetoric. We can ignore it completely. Thanks!

Of course it looks like offense to you. How could we expect you to have an objective assessment of anything involving the US or Israel? Oh, that's right...we can't.

If it were about offense, we would've already done it long ago.

And when it comes to rhetoric, worry about someone who actually has some level of power to effect foreign policy. None of those candidates do. One might, come Jan 2013, and you can guarantee the rhetoric will be different by then.

2012-02-23 04:23:01

#365

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Who's threatening war? Did you mean the EU-3, GCC nations and the US when you said "you"?

Only the US and Israel are threatening to bomb Iran, the others are comfortable with sanctions.

If it were about offense, we would've already done it long ago.

Your logic is getting twisted again.

Had Bush had a little more time and power no doubt he would have done it already, and he created the problem.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-23 04:24:40)

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 04:23:17

#366

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6931|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
Whats the problem?

Iran hasn't done anything to anyone, and we're threatening to level the place, how is that not 'wow' worthy?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-02-23 04:24:34

#367

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Who's threatening war? Did you mean the EU-3, GCC nations and the US when you said "you"?
Only the US and Israel are threatening to bomb Iran, the others are comfortable with sanctions.

The US isn't threatening to bomb Iran.

Political candidates who don't even know if they're going to get the nomination to run for office do not set US foreign policy. Neither does Israel, btw.

Dilbert_X wrote:
If it were about offense, we would've already done it long ago.
Your logic is getting twisted again.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my logic. The only ones jumping to unfounded (and factually incorrect) conclusions are you and Reaps.

Had Bush had a little more time and power no doubt he would have done it already, and he created the problem.

And...here we go. Can't believe you held out for this long. FFS, you're as bad as the Obama Administration/DNC in beating that dead horse.

How high were the tensions with Iran when Bush left office more than three years ago?

Protip: Not as bad as they are now, after a foreign policy run by the Obama Administration.

Is it possible that tensions could've been just as high had Bush served another term? Possibly, since all the tensions are a result of Iran not cooperating with the UN and IAEA...and the resulting sanctions that you praise in one post and then decry in another. Put in place by the EU-3, GCC, and US...and now Russia as well.

But it's all the US and Bush's fault. He's somehow controlling the world stage from his home in Dallas. Or was it the Israelis controlling everything? So hard to keep up with your conspiracies. We really need a cheat sheet.

2012-02-23 04:26:10

#368

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Obama and Clinton have effectively said they're ready to attack Iran, every Republican candidate is jostling to prove they'd bomb Iran the most.

And Israel does set US foreign policy

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 04:31:42

#369

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

You've already been given the foreign policy paper that disproves your Israel conspiracy.

I can provide the information...I can't understand it for you.

2012-02-23 04:33:46

#370

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Doesn't disprove anything. Someone wrote a paper, so what.

Fuck Israel

2012-02-23 04:54:58

#371

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6410|what

FEOS wrote:
ORLY?

Gee. Looks like you did.

Two different sentences. You understand what a full stop is, yes? You're just cherry picking then attacking what you think I meant.

FEOS wrote:
And a single candidate does not equate to the entire panel, btw.

I didn't say the entire panel thought that. Why even argue that as a response? I said "Syria is a puppet of Iran apparently". You said you doubt any of them said that. Well one of them did and I proved it. Is Syria a puppet? Of course it isn't. But it sounds scary when you say that sort of thing. Makes Iran look even more dangerous cause omg they control Syria!

FEOS wrote:
Who's threatening war? Did you mean the EU-3, GCC nations and the US when you said "you"?

Israel's security is a tangential concern in this. If your "theory" were correct, that means Israel controls all those other countries along with the US, as well. Are you willing to go out on that logical limb?

Why does Israel need your (the US) security? They have an army, navy, airforce and nuclear weapons themselves. Oh right, because the Repubs will tell you that if Iran gets a nuke, somehow Venezuela will also, which can then end up blowing up in the US. Or Iran will use it on Israel. Nevermind the fact that Israel would launch their own nuclear weapons in return.

Feos wrote:
Are you seriously arguing that Romney's description is incorrect? Iran has other Arab countries allied with it? Syria doesn't support Hezbollah, who threaten Israel?

Oh, damn. Pesky facts.

God forbid one of the candidates describes the issue in more complex terms than "we're gonna bomb Iran". Oh, I'm sorry...I guess they were saying "invade", weren't they? Same thing, right?

They describe it as Iran as the boogey man, Syria is part of an Axis and they are arming Hezbollah against Israel. This is meant to be scary because they all apparently, as you say "threaten Israel". Your argument is that Israel doesn't dictate foreign policy in the US.

What do you think these candidates are trying to prove, if not how threatened Israel is so let's bomb Iran?

Feos wrote:
Of course it looks like offense to you. How could we expect you to have an objective assessment of anything involving the US or Israel? Oh, that's right...we can't.

If it were about offense, we would've already done it long ago.

And when it comes to rhetoric, worry about someone who actually has some level of power to effect foreign policy. None of those candidates do. One might, come Jan 2013, and you can guarantee the rhetoric will be different by then.

The rhetoric won't be simply rhetoric once they are in power.

The Republican party has become nothing but warmongers. These debates have shown that, every single time.

2012-02-23 05:10:19

#372

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5516|foggy bottom

iran sucks

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-25 10:44:58

#373

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

That's OK, Reaps. Just continue to ignore the international unity against Iran and keep beating that drum.

I'm sure you'll find others who ignore facts just to continue raining hate on the US and Israel.

2012-02-25 14:05:32

#374

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6730|Kakanien

has been said over and over again but i will say it again:

- it's pretty ridiculous to say your country is allowed to have atomic weapons but most of the other countries are not

- if i was iran and two of my neighbouring countries had been invaded, i would want to have nukes, too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2012-02-25 14:14:14

#375

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5516|foggy bottom

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
has been said over and over again but i will say it again:

- it's pretty ridiculous to say your country is allowed to have atomic weapons but most of the other countries are not

- if i was iran and two of my neighbouring countries had been invaded, i would want to have nukes, too

N
P
T

Tu Stultus Es

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 25

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Santorum wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

ROMNEY wrote:

Sontorum wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Spark wrote:

AR wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Santorum wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

ROMNEY wrote:

Sontorum wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Feos wrote:

Feos wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Board footer