Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Captain Richard Phillips Rescued!

Rate this topic


Trebor
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is truly wonderful news.

Captain. Richard Phillips, the merchant captain being held by the four Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean, apparently jumped once more into the ocean, giving SEALs the opportunity to kill three of the pirates guarding him as they took aim to shoot him. The fourth pirate apparently was onboard one of the Navy ships, "negotiating." He's now in custody.

*Moderators, please move this to where its appropriate. It's my first thread, and obviously does not belong in "Questions about Objectivism." Thank you.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I correct in my belief that the Navy could probably clear out this problem in a few months of unrestricted warfare in that region? We got our guy back, but we can't just wait for this to happen again. There are hundreds of others still being held hostage in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story is still coming out on how the escape/rescue occurred. I've heard at least two different stories since the news broke.

Am I correct in my belief that the Navy could probably clear out this problem in a few months of unrestricted warfare in that region? We got our guy back, but we can't just wait for this to happen again. There are hundreds of others still being held hostage in that area.

If the problem wouldn't be completely solved, an increased presence would presumably reduce the occurrence of such events. I'm curious as to what the Navy's policy is for this area, which has been in the news so often, and how many patrols they do in the area. Given that it's in the area near Somalia, there should already be Navy presence, with or without the piracy, I wonder how much presence there actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful news, tainted only be the realization that only three of those scum were killed.

Now we have a rather interesting problem. What do we do with the two captured pirates? Surely we can't expose them to the inhumanity of Gitmo, so do we take them back to the US and give them public defenders in our civillian court system? Does some F. Lee Bailey type who wants to make a name for himself get to tear apart the battlefield evidence, show that it was tainted and eventually get these guys off? Did we even read them their Miranda rights? Hmmmm.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we have a rather interesting problem. What do we do with the two captured pirates? Surely we can't expose them to the inhumanity of Gitmo, so do we take them back to the US and give them public defenders in our civillian court system? Does some F. Lee Bailey type who wants to make a name for himself get to tear apart the battlefield evidence, show that it was tainted and eventually get these guys off? Did we even read them their Miranda rights? Hmmmm.....

With the heavy involvement of the FBI, I think we already have an answer. I don't necessarily disagree with them being prosecuted in a U.S. court of law, but I don't think it's a right that these unlawful combatants have; however, I do think it is more practical, due to issues of imprisonment or less political fallout, than setting up a tribunal for the one in custody. Now, if there is a big push by the DoD to tackle this piracy problem, which will result in many captures and detentions of these pirates, then I think a policy of tribunals would become more practical. Either way, I hope that the detainee is able to be interrogated properly by DoD personnel, i.e., not rushed into justice system custody for its own sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I correct in my belief that the Navy could probably clear out this problem in a few months of unrestricted warfare in that region? We got our guy back, but we can't just wait for this to happen again. There are hundreds of others still being held hostage in that area.

Unrestricted is the key phrase.. no such thing in modern times. The only way to completely solve the problem is to sieze the ports from which the pirates operate (as evidenced in the Barbary Wars, circa. 1800). Given current U.S. involvements and the bad taste left over from our '93 Somalia operation, I doubt anyone would advocate for that.

Edited by SkyTrooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Captain held prisoner did not jump off the boat. He was bound, and unable to do so. There is only one skinny in Navy custody, the other three having been dispatched with head shots, after they exposed themselves abovedeck and were threatening the American captive with their AKs.

Perhaps it would be better if the skinny "tripped" overboard in shark-infested waters.

Personally, I'd like to see him hanged from the yardarm.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused about something. It seems most people are advocating some sort of government intervention in what is going on. While I'm glad the hostage is safe, and the world is certainly better off with the death of these pirates, and everyone loves it when highly capable people perform so very well as these sharpshooters did, I don't see how this was any business of the US government's.

If we begin with the premise that a proper government's role is to protect its citizens from foreign aggression, does that protection extend beyond our borders? It doesn't seem to me that it can. Imagine an American traveling to North Korea and starting a newspaper with weekly editorials about Lil' Kim's abuses. He wouldn't last long. Should the US government then step in to protect his freedom of speech?

There have been several American corporations who've had their assets nationalized throughout the globe. Should the government have stepped in and protected their property? If not, then why should we step in and protect this American sailor?

I understood the Objectivist position to be that if someone wished to do business outside our borders, outside the protection of our law and our military, then they do so at their own peril. What Objective principle extends American government protection throughout the globe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood the Objectivist position to be that if someone wished to do business outside our borders, outside the protection of our law and our military, then they do so at their own peril. What Objective principle extends American government protection throughout the globe?
As I understand it, that is closer to a libertarian position than an Objectivist position. (Of course, that is not an argument about the whether that is a correct position.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we begin with the premise that a proper government's role is to protect its citizens from foreign aggression, does that protection extend beyond our borders? It doesn't seem to me that it can. Imagine an American traveling to North Korea and starting a newspaper with weekly editorials about Lil' Kim's abuses. He wouldn't last long. Should the US government then step in to protect his freedom of speech?

It would be illegal (under US law), for an American to do any business with North Korea, or even their citizens.

There have been several American corporations who've had their assets nationalized throughout the globe. Should the government have stepped in and protected their property?

Yes.

I understood the Objectivist position to be that if someone wished to do business outside our borders, outside the protection of our law and our military, then they do so at their own peril. What Objective principle extends American government protection throughout the globe?

Individual rights.

Obviously, that doesn't mean the American government should declare war every time one American decides to stroll into a danger zone and get himself killed or abducted, or if the French Police fail to find some tourist's stolen bags.

But when another government or armed group systematically abuses the rights of American citizens, or when a ship sailing under an American flag is attacked in international waters, the US military should be sent in.

Of course, in this case, it's more than just one ship being attacked: many ships sailing under US allies' flags have been pirated, hundreds of their citizens kidnapped, and now pirates have "sworn revenge" against the US and France. The appropriate force in this case is much more than just taking out the four pirates who happened to get stranded on a dead boat in the middle of the ocean.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we begin with the premise that a proper government's role is to protect its citizens from foreign aggression, does that protection extend beyond our borders? It doesn't seem to me that it can. Imagine an American traveling to North Korea and starting a newspaper with weekly editorials about Lil' Kim's abuses. He wouldn't last long. Should the US government then step in to protect his freedom of speech?

How is protecting your countries trade at sea similar to opening a newspaper in a foreign state? Why wouldn't we protect our right to freely trade with other counties? We didn't violate their sovereignty or anyone's rights. We didn't insists that they trade with us by force. The ability to trade is vital to any nations survival. Any county or group that interferes with that trade is essentially attacking our right to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, that is closer to a libertarian position than an Objectivist position. (Of course, that is not an argument about the whether that is a correct position.)

Yes, it's quite possible I'm confusing the two. What would be the correct position?

It would be illegal (under US law), for an American to do any business with North Korea, or even their citizens.

That's not a law any Objectivist would support, is it? Shouldn't we be free to trade with whomever we wish?

Individual rights.

Obviously, that doesn't mean the American government should declare war every time one American decides to stroll into a danger zone and get himself killed or abducted, or if the French Police fail to find some tourist's stolen bags.

But when another government or armed group systematically abuses the rights of American citizens, or when a ship sailing under an American flag is attacked in international waters, the US military should be sent in.

That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it? Americans get killed and abducted quite systematically in places all over the globe. You seem to be simultaneously arguing we should not act ("declare war"), yet we should act ("the US military should be sent in") when they are. What is the appropriate government response, and what is it dictated by?

]How is protecting your countries trade at sea similar to opening a newspaper in a foreign state? Why wouldn't we protect our right to freely trade with other counties? We didn't violate their sovereignty or anyone's rights. We didn't insists that they trade with us by force. The ability to trade is vital to any nations survival. Any county or group that interferes with that trade is essentially attacking our right to exist.

They are similar because there are competing legal frameworks involved. International law is not the same as US law, and neither are the same as North Korean law. If we're going to protect our right to freely trade with other countries, then we should be at war with every country on the planet since none of our citizens are allowed to trade freely with theirs. Your last sentence strikes me as a bit hyperbolic. While it's true that nations gain more wealth through free trade with others, it's a bit of a stretch to argue their very existence depends upon it.

To all, I'm reminded of something Ayn Rand said during one of her appearances on Donahue. The question went something along the lines of, "How do you feel about the problems with the Middle East and their oil." Her response was something like, "It's not their oil. We found it. We developed it. They stole it from us. They stole our technology." My questions were, "Who's 'we'? What is 'ours'?" "We" didn't find any oil; "we" didn't develop any oil deposits; private US (and British) oil corporations did. Nothing of "ours" was stolen; property and technology belonging to private US oil corporations were stolen.

Now, if we want to state that American citizens are always entitled to the protections of our military and police forces, regardless of where they might be, aren't we just begging for a lot more conflict? Should we come to the rescue of every American citizen, who has chosen to live and/or trade under much different legal frameworks, just because they're American citizens? Do they bear any responsibility for choosing such conditions? If so, what is the extent of their responsibility? Is it limited to only American citizens? If so, why? If it's the principle that all individuals are free, then it seems the only criteria is that one be an individual, not necessarily an American citizen. If that's the case, then shouldn't we be protecting everyone's rights? Or, is the principle only that all Americans are free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just address this:

To all, I'm reminded of something Ayn Rand said during one of her appearances on Donahue. The question went something along the lines of, "How do you feel about the problems with the Middle East and their oil." Her response was something like, "It's not their oil. We found it. We developed it. They stole it from us. They stole our technology." My questions were, "Who's 'we'? What is 'ours'?" "We" didn't find any oil; "we" didn't develop any oil deposits; private US (and British) oil corporations did. Nothing of "ours" was stolen; property and technology belonging to private US oil corporations were stolen.

I think this was just an abbreviated way of speaking, given that it was clear from the context what "we" meant. Since this was a spoken discussion, substituting longer phrases for "we" and "our" would have been awkward and needless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not a law any Objectivist would support, is it? Shouldn't we be free to trade with whomever we wish?

I support embargoes on enemy nations and governments which enslave their population.

There are threads on embargoes:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=7078&hl=

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...&hl=embargo

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...&hl=embargo

And, of course, Ayn Rand advocated for a full embargo on the Soviet Union.

That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it? Americans get killed and abducted quite systematically in places all over the globe. You seem to be simultaneously arguing we should not act ("declare war"), yet we should act ("the US military should be sent in") when they are. What is the appropriate government response, and what is it dictated by?

I'm not sure what you mean by dictated by. It ought to be done because it is the US gov.'s job to protect Americans' rights, and when and how it is done is determined by US foreign policy (=our interests overall and long term), the nature of the threat, the resources available and reality in general (the cost vs. the benefits of acting, in American lives and materials):

-In most cases there is a local government in place. As long as they are doing an acceptable job of protecting American interests, the US should respect their sovereignty.

-Then of course there are countries like North Korea, etc, with which a trade embargo is appropriate (since doing business with them would amount to participating in slavery, or aiding the enemy-or both).

-The US government also has limited resources, so it does have to prioritize. Dangerous areas of the globe should be listed on official websites (as they are). These are areas in which, if someone is murdered or abducted, it would be impossible for American law-enforcement to investigate, and a military operation (into a hostile area) would be too costly (in money and soldiers' lives).

Now, if we want to state that American citizens are always entitled to the protections of our military and police forces, regardless of where they might be, aren't we just begging for a lot more conflict? Should we come to the rescue of every American citizen, who has chosen to live and/or trade under much different legal frameworks, just because they're American citizens? Do they bear any responsibility for choosing such conditions? If so, what is the extent of their responsibility? Is it limited to only American citizens? If so, why? If it's the principle that all individuals are free, then it seems the only criteria is that one be an individual, not necessarily an American citizen. If that's the case, then shouldn't we be protecting everyone's rights? Or, is the principle only that all Americans are free?

A question that would solve quite a few of those is: Who should have American citizenship?

My answer is: residents of the United States. If someone moves to France or Kandahar, they should lose their "American-ness". (that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to get it back, of course, whenever they decide to move back to the US)

And the principle behind the US government is that Americans have chosen to be free, and establish a government to protect that freedom. People should be free to join in, by moving to the US and officially choosing to become Americans, but those who don't are not entitled to the benefits of the US government. That is the difference between an American and an Iraqi in Baghdad: one of them is part of the 300 million people who are (in an ideal world by choice and actually!!) the reason for the US gov.'s existence, and therefor the beneficiaries of its protection.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's quite possible I'm confusing the two. What would be the correct position?
In essence, it is morally acceptable -- when practical -- for the government to stop anyone from violating rights, anywhere. That is the starting point. Many libertarians approach questions like this from a cost viewpoint and ask why others should pay for it. That's a good question, but not the right starting point. Hypothetically, let's assume that the Maersk line told the U.S. government they'd pay for this little mission. Would there be any objection to it? Many a libertarian would insist that a private navy should have been sent instead. I disagree.

Today, the U.S. government pays to perform all sorts of immoral actions. So, the question of who will pay for a small mission like this, which really has negligible extra costs does not bother me. Today, I would even support military action to go against the pirate bases, and so on ... whatever is the practical long-term approach to protect American-flagged ships, American trade and American citizens.

Leaving aside today's context, one might ask how one could fund such operations under Capitalism. I don't have a well-formed opinion, and doubt I ever will. So, the following are only very tentative, sketchy, unstructured points:

  • being flagged as an American ship could come at a cost and with conditions (including conditions about the type of security the ship-owner will provide);
  • the notion of an armed-service along the lines of a foreign-legion could make sense. It means that people joining that particular service understand this slightly different mission; it also means that funds that people give the government may be specifically directed toward such a force;
  • today we have a few levels that we assign to countries: e.g. we "recognize them" or we "declare war" on them. Possibly, the law should describe some other situations that the government can declare for foreign states. How the government acts toward other states and what it can oblige its citizens to do vis-a-vis such a state can be determined on the nature of that state (as declared by the government, with such declaration even being open to legal challenge).
  • As a U.S. citizen, I have a general interest in having bad guys around the world act with extra care when fear when it comes to messing with any U.S. citizen or anything that is owned by someone in the U.S.

Added later: Just to be clear, the above is not "the Objectivist" position.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that is most relevant in this discussion is that nations do not exist in isolation, they are all part of the world and have relations with each other. By relations I mean everything from tourism, to cross-border business, to trade, to diplomatic relations, to military alliances, etc.

The question then is: should the government's mandate to protect the individual rights of its citizens be restricted to the borders of a nation, or should it be extended over the rest of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this was just an abbreviated way of speaking, given that it was clear from the context what "we" meant. Since this was a spoken discussion, substituting longer phrases for "we" and "our" would have been awkward and needless.

I'm not sure I buy that. If there's anyone who knows the importance of proper terms, and is careful about using them, it's Ms. Rand.

I support embargoes on enemy nations and governments which enslave their population.

There are threads on embargoes:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=7078&hl=

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...&hl=embargo

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...&hl=embargo

And, of course, Ayn Rand advocated for a full embargo on the Soviet Union.

Thanks for the links. My position was stated by Myself: "How can a government legitimately bar its own citizens from trading? Economic power is not a legitimate branch of the government's monopoly on the use of force. If a country is fighting an enemy it must be done with physical force or voluntary economic pressure. To do otherwise would require the intiation of force against its own citizens which is immoral."

I didn't see any convincing arguments against this.

I, too, would support an embargo on anyone whom I disagree morally with, but that would be a voluntary individual action. I would not support the government putting a gun to my head and telling me not to trade with whomever it disagrees with. Surely that would be an initiation of force.

It ought to be done because it is the US gov.'s job to protect Americans' rights

Is this absolute? Does it mean the US government's job is to protect Americans' rights wherever they are and regardless of those Americans' actions? I mean, are American citizens in every country entitled to Constitutional protections?

In most cases there is a local government in place. As long as they are doing an acceptable job of protecting American interests, the US should respect their sovereignty.

What is "acceptable?"

The US government also has limited resources, so it does have to prioritize. Dangerous areas of the globe should be listed on official websites (as they are).

Should the government also have official websites listing other things dangerous to Americans - like dangerous products?

A question that would solve quite a few of those is: Who should have American citizenship?

My answer is: residents of the United States. If someone moves to France or Kandahar, they should lose their "American-ness". (that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to get it back, of course, whenever they decide to move back to the US)

Well, what if you're just visiting? Should you still be considered an American, and therefore protected by the Constitution?

I don't mean to parse your post so much, and if I've missed a salient point please restate it, but it seems to me this doesn't answer the problem. I think D'kian stated it pretty well: "should the government's mandate to protect the individual rights of its citizens be restricted to the borders of a nation, or should it be extended over the rest of the world?"

In a world of proper governments we wouldn't have this problem, but we live in a world where there are no proper governments. With a few somewhat proper governments, where at least some property rights are respected and protected, we're confronted with the problem of how much responsibility those traders should bear. I'll put this in terms I'm most familiar with: securities trading. There are only a few foreign countries I'll consider purchasing securities in. For example, I would never buy securities in a Russian or Chinese company. Of course, I've missed some great opportunities by excluding these from my radar, but the risk of those countries simply stealing my property is far too great. And I wouldn't expect my government to protect my property if Russia, for example, decided to nationalize any company I purchased. If we expand this to shipping, or developing an oil field, why should the US government protect that property? The companies, the traders, who invested the capital to ship goods past Somalia, or invested the capital to develop oil fields in Saudi Arabia understood, or should've understood, they were dealing with governments who don't, or won't, respect property rights. Should I, through my taxes, now step in to bail them out because they've made poor decisions? If I can call upon the government to employ its guns regardless of what risks I take, why can't I call upon the government to employ its guns when I take the risk of perhaps not getting a good education, or having children when I'm too stupid, too lazy, or too careless to care for them?

In essence, it is morally acceptable -- when practical -- for the government to stop anyone from violating rights, anywhere.

I've never understood this. What gives the government this power? I can understand my government using retaliatory force against someone who initiates force against me; the right of retaliatory force is properly mine, but I gave my government that right. Where does my government get the power to use retaliatory force against "A" who initiates force against "B" who is not a citizen of my government? The right of retaliatory force is properly "B's," and he did not relinquish that right to my government. "A" initiates force against "B," my government is not a party to that in any way. Wouldn't my government's intervention be an initiation of force?

Hypothetically, let's assume that the Maersk line told the U.S. government they'd pay for this little mission. Would there be any objection to it? Many a libertarian would insist that a private navy should have been sent instead. I disagree.

I don't see a problem with hiring the US government to do the job, or sending a private navy. I don't think it's an issue of competing laws as in having private vigilante groups within the US. I understand the need to have a single government with a monopoly on the use of force within the US. But to argue the same should apply globally necessarily means there would need to be a global government. As long as it's a proper government, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but we're a long way from it. Since we don't have that, since we're basically living in a world where many areas are lawless and ungoverned, private security seems wholly necessary.

Now, if the US wants to state, "We're going to establish US law in all these lawless areas - we're going to patrol international waters and make them US territory." then fine. But I doubt that's going to be the case. What we have now is the US government doing a poor job of bringing the rule of law somewhat de facto, but not de jure. In essence, the US government is just another one of those vigilante groups with just as much, or just as little, right to do so.

Today, the U.S. government pays to perform all sorts of immoral actions. So, the question of who will pay for a small mission like this, which really has negligible extra costs does not bother me. Today, I would even support military action to go against the pirate bases, and so on ... whatever is the practical long-term approach to protect American-flagged ships, American trade and American citizens.

Well, this is a little like "two wrongs make a right," isn't it? Just because we've accepted the government doing immoral things shouldn't prompt us into accepting further immoral actions, and it certainly shouldn't prompt us into supporting immoral actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Somali Pirates certainly aren't going to go away quietly after getting a bloody nose, courtesy of the Navy Seals. They've hijacked 4 more ships and taken 60 hostages.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy

I like the quote at the end of the article:

The four pirates who attacked the Alabama were between 17 and 19 years old, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. "Untrained teenagers with heavy weapons," Gates told students and faculty at the Marine Corps War College. "Everybody in the room knows the consequences of that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic power is not a legitimate branch of the government's monopoly on the use of force.

Why?

Is this absolute?

should the government's mandate to protect the individual rights of its citizens be restricted to the borders of a nation, or should it be extended over the rest of the world?"

Neither. The government should protect the rights of Americans and those within its jurisdiction.

And no, government protection(and retaliation) are not absolute. (at least I wouldn't use that word to describe them)

In a world of proper governments we wouldn't have this problem, but we live in a world where there are no proper governments. With a few somewhat proper governments, where at least some property rights are respected and protected, we're confronted with the problem of how much responsibility those traders should bear. I'll put this in terms I'm most familiar with: securities trading. There are only a few foreign countries I'll consider purchasing securities in. For example, I would never buy securities in a Russian or Chinese company. Of course, I've missed some great opportunities by excluding these from my radar, but the risk of those countries simply stealing my property is far too great. And I wouldn't expect my government to protect my property if Russia, for example, decided to nationalize any company I purchased. If we expand this to shipping, or developing an oil field, why should the US government protect that property? The companies, the traders, who invested the capital to ship goods past Somalia, or invested the capital to develop oil fields in Saudi Arabia understood, or should've understood, they were dealing with governments who don't, or won't, respect property rights.

That's the position of anarchists, only applied to foreign trade, instead of all trade. It would fail and be anti-Objectivist for the same reasons anarchy within our borders would.

I've never understood this. What gives the government this power? I can understand my government using retaliatory force against someone who initiates force against me; the right of retaliatory force is properly mine, but I gave my government that right. Where does my government get the power to use retaliatory force against "A" who initiates force against "B" who is not a citizen of my government? The right of retaliatory force is properly "B's," and he did not relinquish that right to my government. "A" initiates force against "B," my government is not a party to that in any way. Wouldn't my government's intervention be an initiation of force?

A has no rights. (because he already engaged in the violation of someone's rights) An initiation of force is only possible against someone who hasn't already used violence. Initiating force against a criminal is a contradiction in terms.

...we're basically living in a world where many areas are lawless and ungoverned...

In essence, the US government is just another one of those vigilante groups with just as much, or just as little, right to do so.

Do you have a moral case against self-defense (which is what the US gov. is doing, defending its citizens) or even vigilante-ism, if that's what you wish to call it, in a lawless, ungoverned area?

Well, this is a little like "two wrongs make a right," isn't it? Just because we've accepted the government doing immoral things shouldn't prompt us into accepting further immoral actions, and it certainly shouldn't prompt us into supporting immoral actions.

You haven't explained how it is immoral to defend American citizens and their rights. (whoever is doing the defending actually, let alone their own government)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is a little like "two wrongs make a right," isn't it? Just because we've accepted the government doing immoral things shouldn't prompt us into accepting further immoral actions, and it certainly shouldn't prompt us into supporting immoral actions.
I didn't claim it was immoral for the government to act so; quite the opposite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect the US military to do much in the face of these savages: apparently we are completely helpless!

"NAIROBI, Kenya – Stamping out Somalia's piracy scourge using U.S. warships or military force will be virtually impossible, according to maritime experts who said Tuesday the real problems lie ashore in the ashes of Somalia's failed state."

And they have ruled out arming ships so they can defend themselves.

What a bunch of malarkey!

I say send in the troops the way Thomas Jefferson did responding to a similar threat. The more we say we are helpless the more emboldened they will become.

Link to comment
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.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...