Announcement

Poll

What should we do?

Nothing, leave it as it is.33%33% - 33
Go in, dismantle all the goverments, burn it down.7%7% - 7
Deport everyone to Madagascar.3%3% - 3
Fuck 'em, kill every last one of them. Nukem.42%42% - 42
Bake them cookies and hope they leave us alone.13%13% - 13
Total: 98
General_CoLin_Tassi
Member
+-2|6037|England, UK
No torin. Its about the wrong people having the power to seriously damage our planet. US, UK, France having nukes. No problem. North Korea, Iraq , Iran, Sudan having nukes. F that!
Torin
Member
+52|6029

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So if you don't believe in God then you would have to believe that it was created by man.  What were the nations doing before man created God?  Look at Africa.  There were warring tribes long before your hated Muslims and Christians were fighting.

BTW, why are you so intolerant to the 2?  You should respect their way of life.
They were just as uncivilized as Africa and the middle east is now.

If you go far enough back in time, every society was warring like some still are today. Except some societies completely missed the Evolution Bus and are stuck in the middle ages.

I am not intolerant to those 2 particular religions, I can just acknowledge they are responsible for the majority of the world's problem. People can believe whatever they want to believe, including you and me. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that religion is to blame for all this nonsense.

Speaking of respecting their way of life, maybe if the administration did that, we wouldn't be in this pickle we're in now.
General_CoLin_Tassi
Member
+-2|6037|England, UK
Its true what Ziggy says about Africa. The Sudan situation has been seriously bad. Perhaps other countries should help. The US and UK plus other allied countries have their hands full.

Last edited by General_CoLin_Tassi (2006-02-07 13:05:27)

atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6108|Atlanta, GA USA

Torin wrote:

Do you think the country (read: congress) would have gone along with this "war" if the administration said ahead of time that it would cost the lives of thousands of our troops, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, billions upon billions of tax payer's dollars and what may very well end up as a complete ruination of another soverign nation just to facilitate dethroning 1 of the world's many dictators?
Do you think anyone believed we would be able to overthrow Hussein's government and rebuild the nation with no bloodshed or money spent?  That is a bit naive.
tF-afrojap
Member
+124|6184|SF
HellHead
wannabe_tank_whore
Torin
General_CoLin_Tassi
Marconius
Ziggy_79x

Thank you all for contributing to the thread in a meaningful way. Glad to see this post turn into something.

Last edited by tF-afrojap (2006-02-07 13:13:37)

General_CoLin_Tassi
Member
+-2|6037|England, UK
Thanks mate.
Torin
Member
+52|6029

atlvolunteer wrote:

Torin wrote:

Do you think the country (read: congress) would have gone along with this "war" if the administration said ahead of time that it would cost the lives of thousands of our troops, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, billions upon billions of tax payer's dollars and what may very well end up as a complete ruination of another soverign nation just to facilitate dethroning 1 of the world's many dictators?
Do you think anyone believed we would be able to overthrow Hussein's government and rebuild the nation with no bloodshed or money spent?  That is a bit naive.
It would have been nice to at least be given a choice in the matter rather than be deceived into comitting to something we had no evidence would even occur.

No one was even approached with that situation, so it's entirely moot. No one is postulating that overthrowing another government and rebuilding an entire country would cost nothing and result in no bloodshed, but we weren't even approached with the idea. This entire war was initiated through deceipt.
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|6102|Dallas

tF-afrojap wrote:

HellHead
wannabe_tank_whore
Torin
General_CoLin_Tassi
Marconius
Ziggy_79x

Thank you all for contributing to the thread in a meaningful way. Glad to see this post turn into something.
Uhh, yeah...you forgot Cougar there mate.  I kinda sorta made this thread.  I'm working towards a copyright too.
Stealth42o
She looked 18 to me officer
+175|6009
*Middle Eastern Man*

See's a comic depicting my god in a funny (Well I don't think so) manner.

Burns down embasesy, kills people, and threatens to kill everyone responsible.

And cannot figure out why everyone thinks we are vilolent extremists.
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6114
I hate liberal hypocrites.

Torin wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Should we tolerate them as much as they tolerate us?
We should leave each other the hell alone until we can figure out how to properly interact. Meddling like we did in Iraq was completely immature given how poorly our peoples understand each other. It was a big fucking mistake all around.
Since we're grouping the middle east together, they "meddled" with us first.  We struck back.  Just like we went to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor.  Make sense?

Torin wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

It is war.  People die in war.  Hell, people die in Detriot, Atlanta, and LA too... go figure.  Yes, wars usually cost money and if the people didn't know that this war would cost lives and money then they shouldn't be able to vote.

Using bullet points describe Clinton's "doing some good".
All true, but the reason for going into Iraq was not to start a war, it was to remove weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. That is what people voted to approve, not a war that yes, everyone would have known would be as costly as it has.
The intelligence said they were there.  Are you willing to allow them to use them as evidence of their existance before you should act?

Torin wrote:

I never said Clinton did any good, this isn't a political thing. One of the many points I am making is that this administration is a big giant fuck up. Any administration, democrat or republican can be a big fuck up, and it just so happened that this one has been one of the biggest fuck ups in recent history.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

General_CoLin_Tassi wrote:

Torin, things changed after WW2. Being isolationist didn't help anyone prior to WW2. It allowed a problem to get worse. Now we intervene. Fingers crossed and hope it works.
Exactly right.  And if it is the US, England, or Australia that's going to bail out the rest of the world you had better believe we have every right to intervene.  Unless you think millions in Uganda deserve to be slaughtered?
Actually, I do. Our role is not fucking world police, we don't have the right to intervene in every human disaster that occurs across the globe. I am a firm believer in survival of the fittest, and I hope these uncultured, uncivilized piece of shit societies lacking any form of evolution will just wipe themselves out, saving the rest of civilized society some time where we can make actual progress, rather than constant tribal warfare and religiously motivated genocide.
Hypocrisy!  Define civilized.  Define peaceful villagers.

Torin wrote:

The majority of civilized society has made it to where we are today, and not on the merit of some country who decided to stick it's nose into any tragedy it felt obliged to. When the native indians were being slaughtered during the settling of North America, who came along to stop it? Not a damn person. Why then because it is possible today, should we now intervene in any situation we don't like, just because we can? Do you think that somehow, through our intervention, these societies completely devoid of evolutional progress are going to actually make progress? No, they have to struggle through this shit.
Define civilized again.  We got where we are today because we "walked softly and carried a big stick".  Is that civilized?

Torin wrote:

Civil war should not be our concern, no matter what form it takes and where. There is a huge difference between the nuclear situation in Iran, and tribal nations performing genocide on themselves in Africa. One affects the entire world, the other affects 1 single country, caused by it's own lack of evolution.
It's not a civil war when an entire population is being exterminated.  Watch Hotel Rwanda.

Torin wrote:

Let these uncivilized fuckers burn themselves, and maybe one day enough common sense will dawn upon them to make them worthy of being a contribution to global affairs. Until then, the US doesn't need to go running into any situation it feels fit, force feeding ideals onto people that don't believe them.

I hate closed minded republicans.
Maybe their peaceful existance prior to genocide would be a contribution?
HellHead
The fantastic Mr. Antichrist
+336|6046|Germany

Torin wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

Torin wrote:

Do you think the country (read: congress) would have gone along with this "war" if the administration said ahead of time that it would cost the lives of thousands of our troops, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, billions upon billions of tax payer's dollars and what may very well end up as a complete ruination of another soverign nation just to facilitate dethroning 1 of the world's many dictators?
Do you think anyone believed we would be able to overthrow Hussein's government and rebuild the nation with no bloodshed or money spent?  That is a bit naive.
It would have been nice to at least be given a choice in the matter rather than be deceived into comitting to something we had no evidence would even occur.

No one was even approached with that situation, so it's entirely moot. No one is postulating that overthrowing another government and rebuilding an entire country would cost nothing and result in no bloodshed, but we weren't even approached with the idea. This entire war was initiated through deceipt.
I´m not callling the war over their a good thing, but Torin, sorry for this now, but there was no chance of changing Iraq from "bad to good" just by " let´s wait , they will figure someting out".
Besides the whole oil story, Hussein was really somebody who had to be stopped. In one or the other way.
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6114

Ziggy_79x wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So what must we do?  The same thing is happening in Africa where thousands starve and are slaughtered by thugs.  The dictatorships in both the middle east and African countries have plenty of money yet they starve their population.  We're trying in both areas.  And that's more than most countries can say.
I'm glad someone brought up Africa here because it's a very good point. There have been ruthless dictators there slaughtering innocent people for a long ass time. But nobody seems to care really. You didn't see us sending hundreds of thousand of our troops and spending billions of dollars for a war in Rawanda when millions of innocent people were dying there. I mean the genocide that was going on there would make Saddam jealous. The war in Iraq didn't have shit to do with terrorism, and I get sick every time I hear the words "OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM". BULLSHIT! It should be "OPERATION MAKE A PUPPET GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ SO WE CAN CONTROLL ALL THEIR OIL" Bush and his administration dosen't give two shits about oppressed people anywhere in the world, or bringing freedom to those people. And while the invasion of Iraq may not have been a vendetta, it certainly wasn't for the FREEDOM of the Iraqi people.
In 2002 Iraq only supplied 3.9% of US imports.  I don't think you have been well informed on oil.  Now tell me who the largest supplier is. 

Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people and the world stood by as well.
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|6102|Dallas
So.....you two are saying your sick of the Middle East....or no....I'm confused.
General_CoLin_Tassi
Member
+-2|6037|England, UK
Wannabe tank whore and hellhead. Well said.
occamsrezr
Member
+7|6052
Can I still call you Mr.McKuddlekins?
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6108|Atlanta, GA USA

Torin wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

Torin wrote:

Do you think the country (read: congress) would have gone along with this "war" if the administration said ahead of time that it would cost the lives of thousands of our troops, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, billions upon billions of tax payer's dollars and what may very well end up as a complete ruination of another soverign nation just to facilitate dethroning 1 of the world's many dictators?
Do you think anyone believed we would be able to overthrow Hussein's government and rebuild the nation with no bloodshed or money spent?  That is a bit naive.
It would have been nice to at least be given a choice in the matter rather than be deceived into comitting to something we had no evidence would even occur.

No one was even approached with that situation, so it's entirely moot. No one is postulating that overthrowing another government and rebuilding an entire country would cost nothing and result in no bloodshed, but we weren't even approached with the idea. This entire war was initiated through deceipt.
It was not initiated through deceit.  The WMD evidence was not manufactured.   The entire world thought Iraq had WMD.  Hillary Clinton has said numerous times (before and after the war started) that the intelligence was the same when Bill was in office (I can dig up an interview if you want).  Saddam had disregarded numerous UN resolutions and had no intention of complying.  I would have liked for this to have been a UN mission; the UN had every right to intervene based on the resolutions in place, but, as we found out later, certain countries had sweet deals with Iraq and were never going to vote to invade.
My only real qualm is that we didn't seem to have a solid strategy for handling the situation after the initial war was over.
And I'm  confused by "we weren't even approached with the idea."  Could you explain what you mean by this?
Torin
Member
+52|6029

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I hate liberal hypocrites.
And what precisely am I being hypocritical about, or was that just a random statement? I hate all hypocrites, republican and democrat alike.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Torin wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Should we tolerate them as much as they tolerate us?
We should leave each other the hell alone until we can figure out how to properly interact. Meddling like we did in Iraq was completely immature given how poorly our peoples understand each other. It was a big fucking mistake all around.
Since we're grouping the middle east together, they "meddled" with us first.  We struck back.  Just like we went to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor.  Make sense?
I didn't group the middle east together, that's what people like Bush did to validate invading Iraq. I know there is a very noticable distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq, and I wouldn't even posture that Al-Quaida comitting 9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq, like you obviously are.

What you're suggesting is like Japan attacking us at Pearl Habor, and us retaliating against Korea because they're nearby. Al-Quaida attacking us on 9/11 does not warrant invading Iraq, which happens to be a completely different entity, if you haven't noticed.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Torin wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

It is war.  People die in war.  Hell, people die in Detriot, Atlanta, and LA too... go figure.  Yes, wars usually cost money and if the people didn't know that this war would cost lives and money then they shouldn't be able to vote.

Using bullet points describe Clinton's "doing some good".
All true, but the reason for going into Iraq was not to start a war, it was to remove weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. That is what people voted to approve, not a war that yes, everyone would have known would be as costly as it has.
The intelligence said they were there.  Are you willing to allow them to use them as evidence of their existance before you should act?
Flawed intelligence conveniently cherry picked to support the invasion of Iraq said they were there. No, I'm not willing to use them, but you can't be naieve enough to think there is no line to draw between waiting for them to use weapons against us, and having actual solid intelligence to go on, not some heresay, which is what our "intelligence" (how ironic) was.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Hypocrisy!  Define civilized.  Define peaceful villagers.
Civilized, in this day and age, reflects a general state of society and government. Having a stable government that supports its people, making technological and social advances, living in relative harmony, etc. This isn't how it is in the middle east, even remotely. Peaceful is also completely relative, but I'll tell you what it isn't: religious extremists running around blowing each other up with bombs wired to their cars and bodies.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Torin wrote:

The majority of civilized society has made it to where we are today, and not on the merit of some country who decided to stick it's nose into any tragedy it felt obliged to. When the native indians were being slaughtered during the settling of North America, who came along to stop it? Not a damn person. Why then because it is possible today, should we now intervene in any situation we don't like, just because we can? Do you think that somehow, through our intervention, these societies completely devoid of evolutional progress are going to actually make progress? No, they have to struggle through this shit.
Define civilized again.  We got where we are today because we "walked softly and carried a big stick".  Is that civilized?
Like I said, it's all relative. We were civilized for that day and age. And since it's all relative, you have to make the distinction between their behavior and ours, which is quite different. Being civilized accounts for a lot more than how we decide to engage in war, it encompasses all aspects of life. Civilized is most assuredly living in a desert, bombing each other at church, waging a never ending war on our neighbors and an occupation we cannot hope to defeat and letting religious extremism dictatehow we live our lives.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Torin wrote:

Civil war should not be our concern, no matter what form it takes and where. There is a huge difference between the nuclear situation in Iran, and tribal nations performing genocide on themselves in Africa. One affects the entire world, the other affects 1 single country, caused by it's own lack of evolution.
It's not a civil war when an entire population is being exterminated.  Watch Hotel Rwanda.
Genocide can still be a civil war so long as it originates within it's own boundaries. It'll no doubt be a 1-sided war, but it is still a civil war. We're talking about a people whose evolutions is hundreds of years behind the rest of the world. In my opinion, the sooner they wipe each other out, the better.
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6114

Torin wrote:

And what precisely am I being hypocritical about,

Genocide can still be a civil war so long as it originates within it's own boundaries. It'll no doubt be a 1-sided war, but it is still a civil war. We're talking about a people whose evolutions is hundreds of years behind the rest of the world. In my opinion, the sooner they wipe each other out, the better.
This is what I'm talking about. 

How is it that we have the right to live and they do not?  Because our assault rifles say so?
elmer1082
To The Front
+4|6093|Columbus, Indiana
Go Bush !!!!!!

To bad they have term limits
tF-voodoochild
Pew Pew!
+216|6185|San Francisco

Cougar wrote:

tF-afrojap wrote:

HellHead
wannabe_tank_whore
Torin
General_CoLin_Tassi
Marconius
Ziggy_79x

Thank you all for contributing to the thread in a meaningful way. Glad to see this post turn into something.
Uhh, yeah...you forgot Cougar there mate.  I kinda sorta made this thread.  I'm working towards a copyright too.
Yeah, your contributions were really meaningful.

Let's take a look back at some of your better ones...

Cougar wrote:

poopy

Cougar wrote:

I've typed to much today, so HellHound or whatever your name is, yeah.  Thats all, just a yeah.  Damn the man.

Cougar wrote:

Agreed.  I donkey punched a MEC chick once.
Ziggy_79x
Member
+4|6023

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

In 2002 Iraq only supplied 3.9% of US imports.  I don't think you have been well informed on oil.  Now tell me who the largest supplier is.
You're probably right, I'm not that well informend on oil but I stand by what I said because it dosen't have anything to do with how much they were supplying to the U.S.  It has to do with how much oil they actually have total, and the potential it has for production.  I read somewhere that the oil reserves in countries that aren't in the middle east are being depleted at a very high rate and 30 years from now the middle eastern countries will hold about 90% of the worlds oil reserves.  Anyway, I'm not saying that oil was the only reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq. It was just the biggest reason.

Edit:  Oh, the answer to your question is either canada or venezuela I'm not that sure. But I didn't cheat.

Last edited by Ziggy_79x (2006-02-07 13:51:30)

Torin
Member
+52|6029

HellHead wrote:

I´m not callling the war over their a good thing, but Torin, sorry for this now, but there was no chance of changing Iraq from "bad to good" just by " let´s wait , they will figure someting out".
Besides the whole oil story, Hussein was really somebody who had to be stopped. In one or the other way.
Can't the same stance be taken against Kim Jong-il? Do we have the same right to just invade North Korea and force feed democracy on them too? Or do we only have the balls to do it to a nation that we know has no realistic means of fighting back?

I never said to just wait around for Iraq to figure things out, but invading Iraq, dethroning their government and forcing democracy down their throats was entirely the wrong decision. You talk about the situation in Iraq like the only choice we had was to go in and do what we did?

In the same right, how can you or anyone supporting the war in Iraq, also support the continued diplomacy with North Korea when we have just as much reason to invade them as we did Iraq? (which equates to almost nothing at all)

atlvolunteer wrote:

It was not initiated through deceit.  The WMD evidence was not manufactured.   The entire world thought Iraq had WMD.  Hillary Clinton has said numerous times (before and after the war started) that the intelligence was the same when Bill was in office (I can dig up an interview if you want).  Saddam had disregarded numerous UN resolutions and had no intention of complying.  I would have liked for this to have been a UN mission; the UN had every right to intervene based on the resolutions in place, but, as we found out later, certain countries had sweet deals with Iraq and were never going to vote to invade.
My only real qualm is that we didn't seem to have a solid strategy for handling the situation after the initial war was over.
And I'm  confused by "we weren't even approached with the idea."  Could you explain what you mean by this?
No, the WMD "evidence", if you can even call it that, was real, but was so weak and relatively unfounded that it shoudl not have been used as the cornerstone of the logic to invade a soverign nation. Yes, the entire world of apparently completely ill-informed intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD, goes to show we should have taken more time and effort to ensure those thoughts were actually founded, rather than just jump on them seemingly at a whim. Had we taken the time to continue the weapon inspections and find out one way or another, we would have actually known, but we just jumped the gun and invaded instead.

Yes, Saddam did oppose the UN and did not comply, but that course of action could have been taken to it's natural conclusion, rather than completely bypassing it and invading them like the US did. What do you think will happen if a similiar situation occurs with Iran, who we know actually have the capability to make a nuclear bomb right now? Or North Korea, who we know already has them? It's the right idea to keep on the democratic route with Iran and North Korea, but it's ridiculous to have done the same with Iraq? Or is it just ok now in hindsight of the huge fuckup that is the Iraq invasion.

And as far as the oil for food corruption goes, don't you think after investigating and bring it all to light, things may have changed in the realm of who would vote to invade Iraq?

As to me saying we weren't even approched with the idea, I mean the American public and Congress. When Bush went to congress saying "blah blah blah they have WMDs I want to invade" and Congress agreed, no mention was made of dethroning Saddam, occupying their country for years on end to rebuild it and force feed them some democracy. We were never approached with the facts that we were going in, we were going to remove and imprison Sadam, we were going to rebuild the entire country, fight an insurgency and force a democracit government onto people with no prior history of democracy or support for it. No, it was simply "we're going in for the WMDs" and that's it, which all turned out to be a damn lie or a very badly informed intelligence community, however you want to look at it.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Torin wrote:

And what precisely am I being hypocritical about,

Genocide can still be a civil war so long as it originates within it's own boundaries. It'll no doubt be a 1-sided war, but it is still a civil war. We're talking about a people whose evolutions is hundreds of years behind the rest of the world. In my opinion, the sooner they wipe each other out, the better.
This is what I'm talking about. 

How is it that we have the right to live and they do not?  Because our assault rifles say so?
Back during the Revolutionary war, what gave us the right to live?

It's not always about the right to live.

Last edited by Torin (2006-02-07 13:54:47)

HellHead
The fantastic Mr. Antichrist
+336|6046|Germany
A little add on to the "nuclear iran story"...:

For those of you who are not aware :

The CIA got their hands on a laptop like a year ago which held information about the whole nuclear situation in Iran...
Well...that is what they said...
Actually they were letting a lot of people check through all those pages, including professors specalized i nuclear physics and so on and I just saw an interview with one of them yesterday : " There is no proof for any existence of nuclear weapons or about the try to build any nuclear weapons among this material"

The reason why that story is cooked so hot right now is the nuclear conference coming up and the chain goes like this :
- Amercian government gave wrong infomations to the press/media (secretly)
- Media/Press published the stuff
-American government refers to those stories officaly and claims Iran to be a dangerous country

Voila ! Let the tanks roll !
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6114

Marconius wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

What about the USS Cole, the embasy bombings, the first Trade Tower attack?  So, Clinton is in on it too by your logic.
I've already discussed that at length in another thread, but to narrow it down to a nutshell:
WTC 1 was planned and carried out by four men a mere month into Clinton's presidency.  Clinton quickly hunted down and arrested the lot of them and they are now in prison.  The embassy bombings resulted in Clinton retaliating with cruise missiles launched into key targets of the people who claimed responsibility.
The USS Cole was carried out by bin Laden's group, but that happened in the last year of Clinton's presidency.  He knew it was Al Qaeda, and had Richard Clarke come in and devise a way to completely eradicate them.  The Bush administration kept Clarke in the White House when they took over, but neglected to listen to Clarke nor read his document outlining the way to take them down.  They ignored him until September 4th, 2001.
I was making the point that clinton had allegations against him and all these attacks took place.  Wag the dog if you will.

Marconius wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So what must we do?  The same thing is happening in Africa where thousands starve and are slaughtered by thugs.  The dictatorships in both the middle east and African countries have plenty of money yet they starve their population.  We're trying in both areas.  And that's more than most countries can say.
...People have been dying for hundreds of years in Africa, Middle east, and all over the world.  We're trying to make a difference now, that is all.
World affairs affect us, but it's another matter entirely if we decide to go vigilante with everything we find "wrong," as then we just ride on in and push our beliefs on other cultures.  We can't do anything unless the people being affected by awful dictatorships/corruption actually Ask us for help directly.  Like in the Mogadishu incident highlgihted in "Black Hawk Down."  The general the army takes into custody calmly says "It's not your war."  The world just isn't our responsibility alone; we don't own it.  Terrible things may happen around the world, but attempting to address them all will just spread our country too thin and break us apart economically, structurally, and politically.  We need to come back into ourself and fix the problems we have here in our own country before we think it's necessary to start up our "democracy" manifest Destiny again (and it's never right to do that).
>The general the army takes into custody calmly says "It's not your war." 

I say, "it will be one day."  Especially when our aid is intercepted by war lords and thugs.  Remember the beginning quote?  "Only the dead have seen the end of war."  So true.

Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-02-07 13:57:03)

Torin
Member
+52|6029
Sound like any other country we know? *cough*

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard