Jump to content
blah the Prussian

What to do about ISIS

Recommended Posts

Well, not too long from now it will be a year since this whole ISIS clusterfuck started. It seems to me that it would no longer be accurate to call ISIS a terror organization, as they have been having great success with fighting a conventional war in the Middle East, and against a rather large coalition of countries arrayed against them. Now, that leads to the question of how the fuck do we solve this? Well, if the Pacific War has taught me anything, it's that it's a lot easier to seize territory than it is to liberate it. At this point, I think we need to accept that it will be impossible not to kill innocents in this war and launch a total bombing campaign against ISIS held lands. The threat of killing innocents didn't stop us against the Nazis and Japanese and air power is significantly more important now than it was then. The question is, how much should countries not directly threatened by ISIS get involved? In my mind, all Middle Eastern countries not currently in deep shit themselves should send ground forces, and the rest of us should bomb them into submission. Israel, in my mind, is a country that really should be contributing ground troops, as they will likely have unpleasant things done to them if ISIS conquers Israel. That's just my opinion, however. What does everyone else think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but America should not be involved with this war at all in the first place. America should not be the world police (and we deserve cool jets and to function out of Mt. Rushmore if we were). With that said ISIS is America's fault due to how determined people were to simply pull out and not help.

My thoughts? ISIS cannot be legitimately stopped without troops on the ground and, so long as America just lends air support, anything they can do to help stem the tide is just that, stemming the tide. We can train troops, we can shoot people from the sky, but it's not our soldiers fighting directly so we can't do much without carpet bombing an entire city or something. So... we're sort of... stuck. Can't pull out cause it's out fault (and I'm pretty sure there are some treaties too) but people don't want to go all-in so we can't do much beyond bombing.

The best thing America, or any other non-middle-eastern nation for that matter, can do to stem ISIS is make it clear that they are radicals and do their best to keep people from joining or buying relics from them; but until at least some nation gets boots on the ground we can't do too much beyond cheer and throw beer bottles at the players.

Edit: In other words I'm basically agreeing with you but saying we can't do jack until we start actually fighting. We MIGHT be able to keep civilian casualties down if we landed (certainly less than what ISIS is doing now) but for now? Pretty much cheer and hope Russia or China doesn't decide to take advantage of this.

Edited by Snowy_One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but America should not be involved with this war at all in the first place. America should not be the world police (and we deserve cool jets and to function out of Mt. Rushmore if we were). With that said ISIS is America's fault due to how determined people were to simply pull out and not help.

My thoughts? ISIS cannot be legitimately stopped without troops on the ground and, so long as America just lends air support, anything they can do to help stem the tide is just that, stemming the tide. We can train troops, we can shoot people from the sky, but it's not our soldiers fighting directly so we can't do much without carpet bombing an entire city or something. So... we're sort of... stuck. Can't pull out cause it's out fault (and I'm pretty sure there are some treaties too) but people don't want to go all-in so we can't do much beyond bombing.

The best thing America, or any other non-middle-eastern nation for that matter, can do to stem ISIS is make it clear that they are radicals and do their best to keep people from joining or buying relics from them; but until at least some nation gets boots on the ground we can't do too much beyond cheer and throw beer bottles at the players.

Edit: In other words I'm basically agreeing with you but saying we can't do jack until we start actually fighting. We MIGHT be able to keep civilian casualties down if we landed (certainly less than what ISIS is doing now) but for now? Pretty much cheer and hope Russia or China doesn't decide to take advantage of this.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that America contribute ground troops against ISIS. The Middle Eastern nations, particularly Israel, should be doing the actual fighting. As it stands, Israel is too busy using one of the largest armies in the world to not fight the brutal totalitarian fundamentalist organization at its doorstep who have opinions regarding Jews that would make Hitler smile. And yes, I think ISIS can legitimately be compared to Nazi Germany. And I am, in fact, suggesting carpet bombing an entire city. It's time we accepted that we are no longer fighting a counterinsurgency, we are fighting a total war with an intensity not seen since Yugoslavia. Basically, we need to stop being scared of civilian casualties. If we were scared of civilian casualties in the Second World War, the country I live in would no longer exist. ISIS is treating this war with the respect it deserves, and we need to do the same thing if we want to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is morally obligated to be involved in this war for two reasons:

1. America started this in the first place, so it's their responsibility to fix it up. If Saddam had stayed in power then none of this would have happened. Better Saddam than ISIS I'd say.

2. In any situation, the people/communities with power are morally obligated to help out weaker people/communities when they need it. America can be of more use in helping combat ISIS, so they should do more to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah I like your points for the most part although I am curious as to why you think Israel in particular has such a great obligation to fighting ISIS. Granted, they have the strongest military in the region, and a very good one in comparison with the rest of the world as well. However, it is not their allies that are being invaded. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even Lebanon and Jordan also should be contributing forces to help their Arab allies. They aren't all exactly friends, but they do share common interests. Israel has very few good connections in the region; they are arguably allies with Saudi Arabia, but...even then, not so much.

In addition, imagine some of the Middle Eastern coalitions that would have to be formed with Israel involved. Iran and Israel are the two greatest powers in the region, and Iran is very stable, while Israel isn't quite so stable but still bears a lot of power and they aren't exactly in a lot of danger from current battles they are fighting. Iran has sworn many times over to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, so I could never see them fighting together, even against such a dangerous group as ISIS. The prejudices in this region run way back, and while taking out ISIS could definitely help fix up the region some, a lot of the hypothetical scenarios are so unfeasible they are almost impossible to pull off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah I like your points for the most part although I am curious as to why you think Israel in particular has such a great obligation to fighting ISIS. Granted, they have the strongest military in the region, and a very good one in comparison with the rest of the world as well. However, it is not their allies that are being invaded. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even Lebanon and Jordan also should be contributing forces to help their Arab allies. They aren't all exactly friends, but they do share common interests. Israel has very few good connections in the region; they are arguably allies with Saudi Arabia, but...even then, not so much.

In addition, imagine some of the Middle Eastern coalitions that would have to be formed with Israel involved. Iran and Israel are the two greatest powers in the region, and Iran is very stable, while Israel isn't quite so stable but still bears a lot of power and they aren't exactly in a lot of danger from current battles they are fighting. Iran has sworn many times over to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, so I could never see them fighting together, even against such a dangerous group as ISIS. The prejudices in this region run way back, and while taking out ISIS could definitely help fix up the region some, a lot of the hypothetical scenarios are so unfeasible they are almost impossible to pull off.

First, it's not about obligation, it's that ISIS wants to commit genocide in Israel, so I really can't see why Israel isn't contributing troops' as they have the most to lose in the event of an ISIS victory. Secondly, Iran has committed a large ground force against ISIS, and Jordan's Air Force is handling the bulk of strategic bombing, though I agree that they should commit ground forces. If Israel does not fight ISIS due to foolish pride, sooner or later they are going to have to, if ISIS reaches their borders. ISIS have essentially declared war on the entire Middle East by claiming it. Meanwhile, Iran and Saudi Arabia are busy squabbling over who gets a puppet state in Yemen. This isn't just about Israel's rivalries. Lastly, if anything Israel is closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia; Israel has been at war with the Saudis since 1948.

America is morally obligated to be involved in this war for two reasons:

1. America started this in the first place, so it's their responsibility to fix it up. If Saddam had stayed in power then none of this would have happened. Better Saddam than ISIS I'd say.

2. In any situation, the people/communities with power are morally obligated to help out weaker people/communities when they need it. America can be of more use in helping combat ISIS, so they should do more to help.

I generally agree with point 2, but point 1 is an oversimplification. Firstly, Saddam staying in power would butterfly away a lot of stuff that happened after his death. Second, I'd argue that the rise of ISIS was mostly due to the Arab Spring; environments of suffering are excellent breeding grounds for demagogues, as Wiemar Germany and Tsarist Russia have shown, and a lengthily civil war with the West supporting people whose platform they have no comprehension of does not help matters. The Syrian and Yemen Civil Wars are where the problem lies. The former directly led to the rise of ISIS, while the latter is distracting the two regional powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, it's not about obligation, it's that ISIS wants to commit genocide in Israel, so I really can't see why Israel isn't contributing troops' as they have the most to lose in the event of an ISIS victory. Secondly, Iran has committed a large ground force against ISIS, and Jordan's Air Force is handling the bulk of strategic bombing, though I agree that they should commit ground forces. If Israel does not fight ISIS due to foolish pride, sooner or later they are going to have to, if ISIS reaches their borders. ISIS have essentially declared war on the entire Middle East by claiming it. Meanwhile, Iran and Saudi Arabia are busy squabbling over who gets a puppet state in Yemen. This isn't just about Israel's rivalries. Lastly, if anything Israel is closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia; Israel has been at war with the Saudis since 1948.

I don't think that it is just Israel. ISIS has a particular hatred for Jews and Christians, but from my understanding they are generally intolerant of anyone unwilling to conform to their extreme jihadism. I knew that Iran had promised to help with ground troops, but never actually saw any confirmation. Woops. Jordan is doing good with their air strikes, but as you've said, those are very ineffectual. Air strikes might have been successful if they had taken place last summer, but it is too late for anything besides a massive ground operation. I do also agree that Israel needs to fight, however the Arab nations of the Middle East have Israel in trouble. A) As you've said, Iran and Saudi Arabia are preoccupied with Yemen. B) Iraq and Syria, already in danger, have been completely torn apart by ISIS, along with civil war and disorganization. C) The Arab nations as a general rule hate Israel. Both are at fault, and I would love to see them set aside their differences and band together, but we haven't seen true peace in the ME in quite some time, so I'm probably being too hopeful here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't mainly due to the Arab Spring. See here: http://rt.com/usa/241325-obama-isis-iraq-bush/

In an interview with Vice News, President Obama said the rise of Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS/ISIL) can be directly linked to America’s excursion into Iraq under Bush.

“Two things: One is, ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

Edited by Chiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is forgetting another important question: How do we deal with their ideology? Sure, taking down the group ought to stop them, but their radical ideology will live on if it is not addressed also. What will stop another group with similar ideology from rising and taking its place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is forgetting another important question: How do we deal with their ideology? Sure, taking down the group ought to stop them, but their radical ideology will live on if it is not addressed also. What will stop another group with similar ideology from rising and taking its place?

There is nothing that really can. Like it or not there will always be fanatics who will use ANYTHING as a rallying point for a 'cause'. In the case of ISIS it was a matter of exploiting years of pent-up disdain at the west combined with the more radical aspects of their religion, but even if everyone in ISIS was combusted with fire as Allah descended from the heavens above and said 'Dude. This is just wrong. So you go and die while I fix the world' SOMEONE would find a way to go 'the only reason this war started was because the Christians/Jews/Sunni/Shia/Buddists/Atheists/Rastafarians/Scientologists/Followers of the RNG goddess/whatever didn't conform to Allah! We should 'exert' Allah's will upon them at gunpoint!' even as he strode the land.

Quite a while ago the Middle East, while maybe not the 'best' place in the world, was far from as bad as it is now. The problem is that it's devolved into a bunch of tribal places wielding radical ideologies as weapons. It's certainly NOT impossible for Islam to get along with other religions, I just don't have a clue as to how to bring about such a thing short of mass brainwashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing that really can. Like it or not there will always be fanatics who will use ANYTHING as a rallying point for a 'cause'. In the case of ISIS it was a matter of exploiting years of pent-up disdain at the west combined with the more radical aspects of their religion, but even if everyone in ISIS was combusted with fire as Allah descended from the heavens above and said 'Dude. This is just wrong. So you go and die while I fix the world' SOMEONE would find a way to go 'the only reason this war started was because the Christians/Jews/Sunni/Shia/Buddists/Atheists/Rastafarians/Scientologists/Followers of the RNG goddess/whatever didn't conform to Allah! We should 'exert' Allah's will upon them at gunpoint!' even as he strode the land.

Quite a while ago the Middle East, while maybe not the 'best' place in the world, was far from as bad as it is now. The problem is that it's devolved into a bunch of tribal places wielding radical ideologies as weapons. It's certainly NOT impossible for Islam to get along with other religions, I just don't have a clue as to how to bring about such a thing short of mass brainwashing.

Islam gets along fine with other religions in many contexts. The largest Muslim population in the world is in Indonesia which has been relatively peaceful throughout its history. The issue I would say is radical fundamentalism, not Islam itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam gets along fine with other religions in many contexts. The largest Muslim population in the world is in Indonesia which has been relatively peaceful throughout its history. The issue I would say is radical fundamentalism, not Islam itself.

Of course. That's not to mention things like the Ottoman empire and the many muslims who get along just fine with other people across the world. I'm saying that there will ALWAYS be someone capable of twisting it to become a radical belief and the reason why it's become bad is because the middle-east as devolved largely into a bunch of tribes with radical beliefs instead of attempting to work together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam gets along fine with other religions in many contexts. The largest Muslim population in the world is in Indonesia which has been relatively peaceful throughout its history. The issue I would say is radical fundamentalism, not Islam itself.

You're kidding right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965–66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trikora

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_East_Timor

Also, in a very Islamic country (Saudi Arabia), Christians are required to pay a special tax simply because they are not Muslims. This is among other things like routine beheadings on the street, no tolerance towards homosexuality etc.

Obviously Islam is the problem here, but you can't do much about it without people freaking out over free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965–66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trikora

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_East_Timor

Also, in a very Islamic country (Saudi Arabia), Christians are required to pay a special tax simply because they are not Muslims. This is among other things like routine beheadings on the street, no tolerance towards homosexuality etc.

Obviously Islam is the problem here, but you can't do much about it without people freaking out over free speech.

Everyone is just so soft these days, what needs to be said is rarely actually said. I think that Islam in and of itself is part of the problem, simply because of the content of the Quran. I'm actually not very well versed with the Quran, but much of it says that nonbelievers should be forced to convert or killed. At the same time, I've heard some people provide arguments contrary to that, so I'm curious about it.

This also raises another issue. The government is trying to monitor potential ISIS recruits/sympathizers here in the US, and this is probably happening in Western Europe some as well. Many people are concerned about losing their privacy, but they want to be secure as well. People want the best of both worlds, but they can't have that. We as Americans need to just man up and accept that we will lose one or the other. And personally, when it comes to a group like ISIS and a religion like Islam, I'd rather go with losing a freedom or two than losing my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Islam is the problem here, but you can't do much about it without people freaking out over free speech.

It's an evident signal of hipocrisy when one is not allowed to speak because of 'free speech'. That's certainly something nice to shove into polictically correct people's faces in public.

At any rate, not talking about it is worse than avoiding speaking about it in fear of censorship (some humanists must've forgotten Voltaire already). If it can be shown that islam is indeed guilty for radicalness, then it -should- be spoken about. Religion is just another kind of idea, not hierarchically superior to others, others shouldn't be looked down for criticizing justifiable bad parts of it. People should value reason more than emotion in a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is forgetting another important question: How do we deal with their ideology? Sure, taking down the group ought to stop them, but their radical ideology will live on if it is not addressed also. What will stop another group with similar ideology from rising and taking its place?

political and economic stability is necessary to have a chance at secularizing islamic ideology. i have no idea about how that would occur, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965–66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trikora

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_East_Timor

Also, in a very Islamic country (Saudi Arabia), Christians are required to pay a special tax simply because they are not Muslims. This is among other things like routine beheadings on the street, no tolerance towards homosexuality etc.

Obviously Islam is the problem here, but you can't do much about it without people freaking out over free speech.

I said 'relatively peaceful' not 'idyllic paradise'. I could bring up an extremely long list of wars that Christian nations have been involved in, but no one is suggesting that Christianity is fundamentally flawed. Anyone with political science knowledge can tell you that the Middle East and Indonesia are not comparable in terms of conflict, despite sharing the same religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah I like your points for the most part although I am curious as to why you think Israel in particular has such a great obligation to fighting ISIS. Granted, they have the strongest military in the region, and a very good one in comparison with the rest of the world as well. However, it is not their allies that are being invaded. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even Lebanon and Jordan also should be contributing forces to help their Arab allies. They aren't all exactly friends, but they do share common interests. Israel has very few good connections in the region; they are arguably allies with Saudi Arabia, but...even then, not so much.

In addition, imagine some of the Middle Eastern coalitions that would have to be formed with Israel involved. Iran and Israel are the two greatest powers in the region, and Iran is very stable, while Israel isn't quite so stable but still bears a lot of power and they aren't exactly in a lot of danger from current battles they are fighting. Iran has sworn many times over to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, so I could never see them fighting together, even against such a dangerous group as ISIS. The prejudices in this region run way back, and while taking out ISIS could definitely help fix up the region some, a lot of the hypothetical scenarios are so unfeasible they are almost impossible to pull off.

We have no interest in fighting ISIS until they attack us or Jordan (even then it's iffy).

This sounds mortifying but our view is "it's Arabs killing Arabs. At least they're not killing us". We've had constant wars since 1947 and have lost 23,000 soldiers with 64 adding to that number last year. If we can avoid getting into a war that doesn't involve us directly, we will.

ISIS will also probably be weakened numbers-wise by the time they reach us and we have the strongest army in the region. That will be suicide for them.

Everyone is just so soft these days, what needs to be said is rarely actually said. I think that Islam in and of itself is part of the problem, simply because of the content of the Quran. I'm actually not very well versed with the Quran, but much of it says that nonbelievers should be forced to convert or killed. At the same time, I've heard some people provide arguments contrary to that, so I'm curious about it.

The Torah advocates the death penalty for first degree murder, adultery and other lesser crimes. If anything, the Torah is probably a lot more brutal than the Quran.

The difference is that more radical Muslims like to interpret the Quran to the word.

Edited by Oogie Fletzet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States has more important things to do than fight ISIS when Russia and China are pushing hard. If we go back into the Middle East it'll be the Iraq insurgency all over again. Unfortunately too many of our supposed allies in Europe are unwilling to grow a backbone and stand up to Putin. Supporting Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, etc is tough enough without defending Europeans who should be more than capable of doing it themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

political and economic stability is necessary to have a chance at secularizing islamic ideology. i have no idea about how that would occur, though.

I wonder if secularization is that needed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Spain is a majorly catholic country which is very tolerant toward gay people and people of other faiths. It seems that it is Islam which needs to evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if secularization is that needed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Spain is a majorly catholic country which is very tolerant toward gay people and people of other faiths. It seems that it is Islam which needs to evolve.

Spain was pretty totalitarian under Francisco Franco (using Catholicism as the justification). Most people do not fondly rmemeber the Francisco Franco era. The majority of Spanish citizens are Catholic today, but arguably only nominally- 59% hardly or never go to church (Spain wikipedia article yay).

So yes, I'd agree that keeping religion out of government doctrine is a good idea, but this may also be related to how much the population actually practices the religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spain was pretty totalitarian under Francisco Franco (using Catholicism as the justification). Most people do not fondly rmemeber the Francisco Franco era.

Wasn't he a fascist, though? I don't see how being a catholic leader makes you a totalitarian dictator (which is what I am getting from your argument), but I certainly see how a fascist can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't he a fascist, though? I don't see how being a catholic leader makes you a totalitarian dictator (which is what I am getting from your argument), but I certainly see how a fascist can.

Being a fascist and being the head of a totalitarian state are not mutually exclusive. One can be a religious leader and not be either of those things of course, but Catholicism was the rationale behind many of Franco's policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said 'relatively peaceful' not 'idyllic paradise'. I could bring up an extremely long list of wars that Christian nations have been involved in, but no one is suggesting that Christianity is fundamentally flawed. Anyone with political science knowledge can tell you that the Middle East and Indonesia are not comparable in terms of conflict, despite sharing the same religion.

I'm pretty sure they can be compared. 500000 people died in Indonesia during 1965-66 and the East Timor invasion killed 100k-200k. By comparison, the Syrian civil war killed 250k-300k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is forgetting another important question: How do we deal with their ideology? Sure, taking down the group ought to stop them, but their radical ideology will live on if it is not addressed also. What will stop another group with similar ideology from rising and taking its place?

You sir win a free internet. This is the crux of the issue with regards to terror. Our policies against terrorist organizations fail because we try to engage them in conventional wars where American technological superiority, combat training, and aerial warfare can be leveraged to our advantage. Being radical, decentralized, asymmetrical actors, the best that the US military (and those of other Western powers) has to offer, conventional "drop troops, caputure cities" approach that seems to dominate strategic thought throughout the West, is completely ineffective against these groups. Countries that try get sucked into a no-win situation. Terrorist plans are such that, even if attacks fail, the terrorists still win. With the United States (or other countries), every time we don't win we lose. After we lose enough, people begin to wonder why we're bothering with such nonsense, and some pressure is taken off of terrorists as the public morale no longer supports overt military action against terrorists. Counterterrorist operations are rather hit or miss simply because no government agency has a crystal ball, I don't care how much leaders boast about their intelligence capabilities.

What Americans (and other countries) need to do is abandon any notion that this problem can be blown away with air strikes and focus on the common motivations behind terrorist group support. We don't even have to defeat the terrorists themselves; merely invalidate the cause they sell to certain consitutents. and demographics. In both my under grad and grad research in this issue, I've found that these groups draw support from local poplations with certain political needs that the established regime does not satisfy. Things like good roads to travel across, easy access to water, stability so that the population's economy can grow: basic facets of what we call "National Security," in other words. Places like Afghanistan serves as a haven for many terrorist organizations because the population supports them. The population supports them because they believe these organizations are the answer to their problems. Think of this in terms of the Tea Party. When the Tea Party started, they promised to make certain things better and improve the quality of life, and some people actually believed it. It's no different with terrorists, insurgents, or Fourth Generation Wars: only in these cases, people are led to believe that killing members of a certain commuity or nationality will make their lives better.

To defeat such an enemy, you must remove his support. To do this, you must address the domestic crises that compel people to put their faith in such violent organizations. Someone, whether it is the United States, the UN, Bengion or Ylisse, must help develop the infrastructure and public works projects to show supporters of these organizations that they don't need to kill people to make their lives better. They just need help setting up a framework that will satisfy their political needs. I think it would also be beneficial if people abandoned the idea that the United States should never experience another terrorist attack. I understand 9/11 was a traumatic experience that still hurts for many throughout this nation, but no intelligence agency or national defense program is capable of the flawless powers of prediction that is necessary to intercept every attack that could ever happen. Pressuring the government to do so may dramatically reduce its capacity to identify credible threats and act upon those threats quickly, as policymakers, in response to the public's need for a guarantee of perfect safety, pushes an overencumbered intelligence community to identfy and prevent every possible bump in the road of life.

My opinion, for what its worth.

Edited by Fox Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...