Jump to content

U.S. Politics: And a Happy "Shithole" Year


Sivin

Recommended Posts

 

On 1/17/2018 at 6:27 PM, dmc515 said:

Wow.  This is so extraordinarily absurd I'm unsure on where to start.  First, let's clarify that the only one making judgments "about Cuba and the Cuban way of life" is you.  Moreover, I'm echoing the vast consensus of Cuban exiles in Florida that I've spent time with, "over a long period of time," which is your own ludicrous standard.  Have you?

So let's extrapolate that standard.  Its logic dictates that since I can't have an opinion on Castro, virtually nobody reading this can have a valid opinion on, say, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Un, or Vladimir Putin.  Further, forget about any historical figure.  After all, while I've lived in the United States all my life, I certainly did not "spend time, over a long span of time, as well as knowing well many Americans from all the strata of the society" when it comes to 1960s America - so how can I make judgments on JFK, or LBJ, or Nixon?  Further yet, I've spent a long period of time in the DC area, getting to know many of from all strata of society.  I'll wager you have not, so how can you make judgments on basically anyone or anything relating to national American politics?

 

23 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

snip

I think Arthur Schlesinger summed up the situation fairly well in the 1950s when he wrote about Cuba:

“The corruption of the Government, the brutality of the police, the government's indifference to the needs of the people for education, medical care, housing, for social justice and economic justice ... is an open invitation to revolution.”

And further I’d add that the US was in a large part responsible for what happened in Cuba as it stood by and let the likes of Meyer Lansky and other mobsters pillage and take advantage of the Cuban people and gave support to Batista.

Whatever one thinks about Castro, it ought not be surprising that the Cuban people would tire of their condition and react. There are things Castro did, that I do not like. But, I understand why he came to power. I understand why he was often supported by the Cuban people. I understand that when conservatives talk about what happened there, they don’t take stock of the conditions there, nor do they take stock of American foreign policy that made the situation worse. I would not make any harsh judement about the people of Cuba, but only feel pity for them, as they were ignored by so many.

But, the point, I want to make here is I dislike this notion that one cannot make a judgement or an opinion on a matter if they don’t have “personal experience” with it. I think this is epistemologically a very bad idea. Certainly one can say things that are ignorant, unfactual, insensitive, illogical, or not reasonable on a variety of topics, but I think it’s not really a good idea to say somebody’s opinion isn’t valid because they don’t have “personal experience” with it. And sometimes I see some on left pushing this type of argument and I wish they would stop for a moment and think through it’s implications.

For instance. I don’t run a huge multi-national bank. Does this mean I can’t criticize Jamie Dimon? I didn’t found a huge corporation. Does this mean, I can’t criticize Bernie Marcus? And so on and so forth.

I did not live in Czarist Russia, or Bourbon France, or in pre Castro Cuba, but my take away, would be: Conservative sorts of people: If you let conditions get bad enough, don’t be surprised if people end up revolting. It would seem it’s a lesson conservative sorts of people, never want to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a tourist I have travelled a lot in Cuba, over  some really bad roads. For a police state, Cuba certainly seems to be uncontaminated with police. I see more police on an average day in Ontario. Even in the cities, there are few cops walking or driving around. We took a trip to see Fidel's grave, a three hour drive over bad roads, and only saw police or military people at the gravesite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

You know why I just laugh at this? Not because I don't believe the Castro regime has treated their opposition harshly, I know they did, but because the criticism is coming from a country that supported horrific regimes that did all the things Cuba did and more and worse.

Who's arguing against this?  This discussion started with me taking issue with Trudeau celebrating Castro.  If he celebrated, say, Pinochet, then yeah I'd have a (bigger) problem with that too.  Anyway, no credible source denies that Castro presided over many executions without due process (and yes, many of these murders were popular - so what?); as well as the forced labor camps and torture of political prisoners.  You don't seem to be denying this, right?  So, why do you think I'm wrong in saying Castro should not be celebrated?  And isn't saying the regime "treated their opposition harshly" an offensive understatement?  And why does it matter that I'm American?  Would my opinion be more valid if I was from another country?

I also did not want to get specific on numbers of killings/torture because (1) as your second link details, there are many different estimates on this:

Quote

Within the first two months of the 1959, Castro's government performed more than 300 executions of Batista officials,[19] with Latin American historian Thomas E. Skidmore says that there had been 550 executions in the first six months of 1959.[20] In an April 1961 UPI story, the agency stated that about "700 have died before Castro's firing squads" between 1959 and 1961.[21] The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators ascertained that there had been 2,113 political executions between the years 1958–67,[20] while British historian Hugh Thomas, stated in his study Cuba or the pursuit of freedom[22] that "perhaps" 5,000 executions had taken place by 1970.[20] According to Amnesty International, the total number of death sentences issued from 1959–87 was 237, of which all but 21 were actually carried out.[23] The anti-Castro Archivo Cuba estimates that 4,000 people were executed in Cuba between 1959 and 2016.[24] The Black Book of Communism estimates that throughout Cuba, 15,000–17,000 people were executed.

And (2) some of the difficulty in this is due to what is explained in your first link:

Quote

While it is impossible to get an exact count, given the opaqueness of Cuba’s criminal justice system and the variations in definitions, there are at least a handful of political prisoners in the country.

Also from that first link, btw:

Quote

Margerin told PolitiFact that just because Amnesty doesn’t list prisoners of conscience in Cuba currently doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The practice is rare as the burden of proof is high and often impossible to meet in a country that Amnesty hasn’t been able to access since 1990, she said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

 And why does it matter that I'm American? 

Because your opinion is heavily influenced by decades of American propaganda.  The US turned Castro and Cuba into the big bad wolf and most Americans still consider it that way without really delving into the actual history of the place.  Most citizens of other countries didn't have this same sort of adversarial relationship with Cuba so they aren't viewing it through your American propaganda lens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

On the moral relativism thing - my office mate was this Romanian woman, and she was 100% in favor of Ceaucescu when he was in power and afterwards. She liked that he was strong, that he killed his enemies, that he imprisoned people who spoke out against him, that he ruled the country with strength. 

If you go to Russia and talk to most people they'll say how happy they are with Putin. 

That doesn't in any way, shape or form change the atrocities committed. 

There is a Joseph Stalin Museum  in place called Gori Georgia .   Stalin  was a  devil , murdered  millions , nearly destroyed  Russia  and yet there  is a museum dedicated to him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Because your opinion is heavily influenced by decades of American propaganda.  The US turned Castro and Cuba into the big bad wolf and most Americans still consider it that way without really delving into the actual history of the place.  Most citizens of other countries didn't have this same sort of adversarial relationship with Cuba so they aren't viewing it through your American propaganda lens.  

The argument that recognizing the political repression, murder, and torture of the Castro regime is derived from American propaganda is incredibly vapid and inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The argument that recognizing the political repression, murder, and torture of the Castro regime is derived from American propaganda is incredibly vapid and inaccurate.

I'm honestly not sure how serious you are because all your commentary about Cuba has been laughable.  You're like someone from straight out of the McCarthy era.  

I suppose that if Trudeau had made positive comments about a dead American leader, you would have this same response.  "He was a murderer, a torturer, a political represser.  How dare he say something nice about that filthy American."  That would be your response, right?  (I'll save you the trouble, it wouldn't.  Because you're full on American propaganda comic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm honestly not sure how serious you are because all your commentary about Cuba has been laughable.  You're like someone from straight out of the McCarthy era.  

So, you're saying all those sources above, which include the UPI, multiple European academics, and a Cuban organization are all American propaganda "right out of the McCarthy era?"  And that the widespread reports and even international conferences on the forced labor camps and torture of the Castro regime is too?  Yeah, talk about comical.

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I suppose that if Trudeau had made positive comments about a dead American leader, you would have this same response.  "He was a murderer, a torturer, a political represser.  How dare he say something nice about that filthy American."

Depends on the leader and the statement.  If he said, say the American had great affection for "tricky DIck," yeah, I would similarly say that was incredibly naive and ill advised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm honestly not sure how serious you are because all your commentary about Cuba has been laughable.  You're like someone from straight out of the McCarthy era.  

I suppose that if Trudeau had made positive comments about a dead American leader, you would have this same response.  "He was a murderer, a torturer, a political represser.  How dare he say something nice about that filthy American."  That would be your response, right?  (I'll save you the trouble, it wouldn't.  Because you're full on American propaganda comic).

You might want read up on what Amnesty International has to say on the subject of Fidel Castro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

So, you're saying all those sources above, which include the UPI, multiple European academics, and a Cuban organization are all American propaganda "right out of the McCarthy era?"  And that the widespread reports and even international conferences on the forced labor camps and torture of the Castro regime is too?  Yeah, talk about comical.

Depends on the leader and the statement.  If he said, say the American had great affection for "tricky DIck," yeah, I would similarly say that was incredibly naive and ill advised.

Someone pointing out that your a McCarthy era comic isn't the same as saying Castro is without fault.  It's just that your painting of Castro is comical and inaccurate.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I suppose that if Trudeau had made positive comments about a dead American leader, you would have this same response.  "He was a murderer, a torturer, a political represser.  How dare he say something nice about that filthy American."  That would be your response, right?  (I'll save you the trouble, it wouldn't.  Because you're full on American propaganda comic).

I can't speak for DMC personally, but if Trudeau made that comment about Andrew Jackson, I would have said that without the hesitation of a doubt. 

Regardless, a critical statement about a (non-American) national leader is not invalid on its face just because the issuer of the statement is American. And an American issuing a critical statement about a (non-American) national leader does not mean the issuer automatically discounts or does not believe that American leaders have not committed their fair share of atrocities on both the domestic and international stages. 

EDIT:

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Someone pointing out that your a McCarthy era comic isn't the same as saying Castro is without fault.  It's just that your painting of Castro is comical and inaccurate.  

 

 

Really?  What did he say that was inaccurate? I'm curious. It'd be great if you could backup what you feel are inaccuracies of his statement with evidence, if you feel so inclined. I doubt it, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Someone pointing out that your a McCarthy era comic isn't the same as saying Castro is without fault.  It's just that your painting of Castro is comical and inaccurate. 

All I've said about Castro is he presided of the killing of many (although the number is debatable) without due process (which is my definition of murder, what's yours?), the establishment of forced labor camps and torture of political prisoners, and that 1.2 million Cubans fled the country during his tenure.  Oh, and that he urged Khrushchev to strike the US first during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which would most certainly have led to the widespread destruction of his country and people.  Please point out what is inaccurate about any of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

I can't speak for DMC personally, but if Trudeau made that comment about Andrew Jackson, I would have said that without the hesitation of a doubt. 

Regardless, a critical statement about a (non-American) national leader is not invalid on its face just because the issuer of the statement is American. And an American issuing a critical statement about a (non-American) national leader does not automatically discount or not believe that American leaders have not committed their fair share of atrocities on both the domestic stage. 

Ok, but what if he said it about another American leader who committed acts of war, jailed millions, murdered many more, destroyed families, and so on?  Like say, Dubya?  Or even Obama?  Because Trudeau wasn't talking about a long dead person, he was talking about someone who lived during all of our lifetimes, and one that isn't in any way comparable to Andrew Jackson.

And this isn't about Americans being discounted.  It's that this particular American is clearly speaking from of place of being blinded by American propaganda.  He literally talks like he read a child's "Communism is really bad and so is Castro" book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Ok, but what if he said it about another American leader who committed acts of war, jailed millions, murdered many more, destroyed families, and so on?  Like say, Dubya?  Or even Obama?  Because Trudeau wasn't talking about a long dead person, he was talking about someone who lived during all of our lifetimes, and one that isn't in any way comparable to Andrew Jackson.

And this isn't about Americans being discounted.  It's that this particular American is clearly speaking from of place of being blinded by American propaganda.  He literally talks like he read a child's "Communism is really bad and so is Castro" book. 

He listed objective and verifiable facts about Castro's regime. Whether or not you put much relative, moral weight in those facts is up to you, but to deny their existence makes you look stupid. 

I don't think Obama is equally as bad as Castro, though we may disagree, but I would have no problem shitting on Trudeau if he said the same thing about Dubya. I take your point about the recency of Castro's death, but I think there are plenty of ways to go about not actively celebrating his regime while still remaining politically tactful, as many if not most other world leaders did regarding his death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Who's arguing against this?  This discussion started with me taking issue with Trudeau celebrating Castro.  If he celebrated, say, Pinochet, then yeah I'd have a (bigger) problem with that too.  Anyway, no credible source denies that Castro presided over many executions without due process (and yes, many of these murders were popular - so what?); as well as the forced labor camps and torture of political prisoners.  You don't seem to be denying this, right?  So, why do you think I'm wrong in saying Castro should not be celebrated?  And isn't saying the regime "treated their opposition harshly" an offensive understatement?  And why does it matter that I'm American?  Would my opinion be more valid if I was from another country?

I also did not want to get specific on numbers of killings/torture because (1) as your second link details, there are many different estimates on this:

And (2) some of the difficulty in this is due to what is explained in your first link:

Also from that first link, btw:

 

Celebrating Castro? Sure, right across Canada we hold dances in his honour, with fireworks at midnight!

Cuba and Canada have been friends for decades. Their leader, beloved by the vast majority of people in the country (Cuban exiles in Florida really don't count) died. The man was a personal friend of Trudeau's father. He expressed a gracious expression of sorrow at his death. Castro was grieved by, ya know, 11 and half million people.

Castro and his supporters threw the scum out of Cuba. He then reached out to the USA for support. The USA told him to fuck off and spent the next 50 years trying to kill him and overturn his government. What the hell do you think happens after a revolution? Americans did not kill and torture British supporters during your revolution, right? Oh let's see, 25,000 Revolutionary soldiers, yes that's what you guys call them, died, and 24,000 British. The population of the US was 2.5 million, for fuck's sake! They didn't try to invade Canada and kill more people? Oh gee, 15,000 US soldiers and 8,500 British and Canadian soldiers didn't die because of fucking American imperialism, 1812 style?

The population of Cuba was 7 million in 1959. How many soldiers did Castro lose? His army was 200 people, Batista had 37,000. Castro said he lost 9 in battle, and 56 were captured by Batista forces and executed. Castro took over Cuba without opposition, while military leaders left the country or headed for the hills. 200 soldiers and police were put on trial for corruption, torture and other crimes against Cubans, and were executed. Most Batista soldiers were allowed to go home without any charges, and officers went into exile. After the revolution pretty well anyone who wanted to leave left for Florida, and continued to leave for years until finally the Castro stopped allowing people to leave. No, he did not imprison and torture "a substantial portion of the population". That's where Dr. Pepper is absolutely right, you're a propaganda clown.

The fact you say 'many more were executed' according to my links makes me laugh. It's like Senator Joe McCarthy, always adding to the numbers of 'known communists' in the US government, the numbers keep going up. Amnesty International I respect, US government backed Cubans in exile I don't trust. Do you think Thomas Skidmore got his numbers from the Cuban government or the US government? The government that was lying to the people of the US about their involvement in Viet Nam? The Pentagon Papers? And did you not even read how the numbers of political prisoners were compiled? Did I say the number was from Amnesty International? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

 And why does it matter that I'm American? 

 

US people are uniquely primed to get hot and bothered about Cuba. The issue isn't about how bad the Communist regime in Cuba is. The issue is why the US singles Cuba out for special attention over and above other countries that are as bad or worse. By all appearances it looks like the reason is there is a sizeable voting bloc of Cuban exiles (or the descendants of Cuban exiles) living mostly in Florida, who will vote enmass against any politician who suggests a relationship with Cuba that lines US-Cuba relations along similar lines as US relations other countries with similar political systems and human rights issues.

People from other countries are aware of the history and current situation in Cuba, we just don't get why US people see Cuba as a special case of evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Their leader, beloved by the vast majority of people in the country (Cuban exiles in Florida really don't count) died.

Well, it's great to know Cuban exiles don't count.

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Castro and his supporters threw the scum out of Cuba. He then reached out to the USA for support. The USA told him to fuck off and spent the next 50 years trying to kill him and overturn his government.

Well, no, he also threw out the American scum - namely the mafia interests that propped up the Batista regime - and nationalized US property in Cuba.  That's when Eisenhower told him to fuck off. 

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The fact you say 'many more were executed' according to my links makes me laugh. It's like Senator Joe McCarthy, always adding to the numbers of 'known communists' in the US government, the numbers keep going up.

How is citing a paragraph from a link you provided to demonstrate there is wide disagreement on the number of executions "adding to the numbers?"  You mention you respect Amnesty International - what about the fact they've been barred from Cuba since 1990?  What about Human Rights Watch and Freedom House, and what they say about the Castro regime and political repression?  Again, no one here is defending the US.  It's just that some of us are able to evaluate Castro on his merits.  Are some of his actions very understandable due to the pressures and treatment of the US?  Certainly.  But this does not excuse his treatment of political dissidents.

9 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Most Batista soldiers were allowed to go home without any charges, and officers went into exile. After the revolution pretty well anyone who wanted to leave left for Florida, and continued to leave for years until finally the Castro stopped allowing people to leave. No, he did not imprison and torture "a substantial portion of the population". That's where Dr. Pepper is absolutely right, you're a propaganda clown.

Except the problem here is according to many the executions didn't stop after the revolution with Castro stabilizing his power.  And the forced labor camps and torture inarguably did not either.  And casting the people who fled to Florida as those that simply "wanted to leave" is what is propaganda.*  They fled out of fear of persecution, and many had nothing to do with the Batista regime but rather had the temerity to criticize the Castro regime.  The vast majority of them did not "want to leave" their families, homes, and country.

 

*BTW, I see I did leave out exile one time when I was referring to the "substantial portion of the population."  I sincerely apologize, but this is what I meant, as was stated in my first response, e.g. "large group of Cubans Castro killed, tortured, and exiled."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

US people are uniquely primed to get hot and bothered about Cuba. The issue isn't about how bad the Communist regime in Cuba is. The issue is why the US singles Cuba out for special attention over and above other countries that are as bad or worse. By all appearances it looks like the reason is there is a sizeable voting bloc of Cuban exiles (or the descendants of Cuban exiles) living mostly in Florida, who will vote enmass against any politician who suggests a relationship with Cuba that lines US-Cuba relations along similar lines as US relations other countries with similar political systems and human rights issues.

Yeah, as I said pages back, this constituency is thankfully dying off.  Once Trump leaves office, hopefully we can get back to opening up relations with Cuba.

28 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

People from other countries are aware of the history and current situation in Cuba, we just don't get why US people see Cuba as a special case of evil.

No, the Castro regime is certainly not a special case of evil.  But pointing out their atrocities and why it's naive to willfully ignore such while painting Castro as a beloved hero apparently means you're a McCarthyist propagandist, even though I don't think I've mentioned communism once until now (and that's because Castro's actions have nothing to do with communism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

He listed objective and verifiable facts about Castro's regime. Whether or not you put much relative, moral weight in those facts is up to you, but to deny their existence makes you look stupid. 

I don't think Obama is equally as bad as Castro, though we may disagree, but I would have no problem shitting on Trudeau if he said the same thing about Dubya. I take your point about the recency of Castro's death, but I think there are plenty of ways to go about not actively celebrating his regime while still remaining politically tactful, as many if not most other world leaders did regarding his death. 

The problem with dmc isn't that he listed 'facts'.  It's that he claimed that Trudeau was wrong in making a statement about Castro upon his death.  Dmc is coming from a place of American propaganda where Castro is to be looked upon as scum, and that's it.  As a special case of evil.  

I didn't list Dubya or Obama to claim they are equal.  Merely that these are two recent leaders who have committed some serious atrocities.  I love Obama, but I can't deny that he was head of a military and country that tortured and imprisoned people without due process, that he murdered civilians by the hundreds with drone wars, that has some of the lowest education standards in the first world, that has some of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates, and so on and so forth.  If Amnesty International and other human rights groups adequately reported on the US, we'd be total shit.  A special type of evil.  

Trudeau didn't do anything unique in making positive commentary about Castro.  Cuba had different relationships with the rest of the world than they did with America.  The person who looks stupid here is the one who claims that Trudeau stumbled by acknowledging that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, it's great to know Cuban exiles don't count.

Well, no, he also threw out the American scum - namely the mafia interests that propped up the Batista regime - and nationalized US property in Cuba.  That's when Eisenhower told him to fuck off. 

How is citing a paragraph from a link you provided to demonstrate there is wide disagreement on the number of executions "adding to the numbers?"  You mention you respect Amnesty International - what about the fact they've been barred from Cuba since 1990?  What about Human Rights Watch and Freedom House, and what they say about the Castro regime and political repression?  Again, no one here is defending the US.  It's just that some of us are able to evaluate Castro on his merits.  Are some of his actions very understandable due to the pressures and treatment of the US?  Certainly.  But this does not excuse his treatment of political dissidents.

Except the problem here is according to many the executions didn't stop after the revolution with Castro stabilizing his power.  And the forced labor camps and torture inarguably did not either.  And casting the people who fled to Florida as those that simply "wanted to leave" is what is propaganda.*  They fled out of fear of persecution, and many had nothing to do with the Batista regime but rather had the temerity to criticize the Castro regime.  The vast majority of them did not "want to leave" their families, homes, and country.

 

*BTW, I see I did leave out exile one time when I was referring to the "substantial portion of the population."  I sincerely apologize, but this is what I meant, as was stated in my first response, e.g. "large group of Cubans Castro killed, tortured, and exiled."

Lol, no, Cubans in exile in Florida don't count when it comes to grieving Castro. They left. They were not Castro supporters. The fact they don't grieve for him doesn't count. 

You'd better check your history. The US eventually put an embargo on Cuba and withdrew it's ambassador, weakening support for Batista. Batista then nationalized US oil companies and other properties, while continuing to support the Mafia and other US businesses. And 75% of the land in Cuba was owned by foreigners, mainly planted in sugar cane, the money going overseas and the people being left without farmland to grow food. Castro's own family lands were expropriated along with the rest of the lands taken over and collectivized by the government. Donald Trump bitched about Obama "selling the US embassy in London for nothing".  Stupid ass doesn't mention it was a building on land owned by the Duke of Westminster, who reportedly said the US could keep the place in exchange for his family's lands in Virginia expropriated by the US government in 1776. What do you think happens after a revolution?

Duh, every person who writes about the Cuban revolution pulls unreliable numbers out of a hat. Because capitalists don't have an agenda, huh? Amnesty International numbers end in 1987 because they were there until 1987, and I trust their research more than American government backed Cubans in exile painting Castro as a bloodthirsty guy slaughtering Cubans. Did you not read that Batista soldiers were allowed to go home, not sent to forced labour camps the way the Russians sent prisoners to the gulag, officers went into exile, they weren't executed the way the Russians would have done. People who did not support Castro left in droves, they weren't banished or exiled. They left. They could have stayed and built their country.

And yes, the executions basically stopped fairly quickly. Executions make the news, since they are so rare, unlike in the US. The most high profile executions were of three army officers decades ago, because apparently they got into drug smuggling. The last execution in Cuba happened in April, 2003. Last year alone 23 people were executed in the US.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...