• US complies to Pakistan. US to withdraw troops from Pakistan
    50 replies, posted
I'm glad when the military leaves any country that isn't mine. That said, Pakistan has been getting fucked over the table hard by us in many ways. Many dead innocents, many unstable results of intervention. Intervention is the evil, it doesn't matter who's in charge or for what glorious reason. If we weren't as big a country as we are, we'd have no right to do 90% of the things we've done. Pretend the United States is a small country the size of Hawaii and imagine what people would really like to say to us. "Get the fuck off of our land cocksuckers" is probably high up on that list. [editline]e[/editline] Also to my recollection Devodiere is the guy who defends Israel constantly so don't get taken back when he says stupid shit [quote]The reason there are bomb blasts and shit is because they have the Taliban there.[/quote] like that. herf derf the enemy is there so blow up a neighborhood
[QUOTE=Devodiere;30057847]What the fuck am I reading?[/QUOTE] You'll learn the [I][B]hard way.[/B][/I] :q: [editline]25th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;30057856]I'm glad when the military leaves any country that isn't mine. That said, Pakistan has been getting fucked over the table hard by us in many ways. Many dead innocents, many unstable results of intervention. Intervention is the evil, it doesn't matter who's in charge or for what glorious reason. If we weren't as big a country as we are, we'd have no right to do 90% of the things we've done. Pretend the United States is a small country the size of Hawaii and imagine what people would really like to say to us. "Get the fuck off of our land cocksuckers" is probably high up on that list. [editline]e[/editline] Also to my recollection Devodiere is the guy who defends Israel constantly so don't get taken back when he says stupid shit[/QUOTE] So I take it you think the Libyan intervention is wrong?
[QUOTE=s0beit;30057856]I'm glad when the military leaves any country that isn't mine. That said, Pakistan has been getting fucked over the table hard by us in many ways. Many dead innocents, many unstable results of intervention. Intervention is the evil, it doesn't matter who's in charge or for what glorious reason. If we weren't as big a country as we are, we'd have no right to do 90% of the things we've done. Pretend the United States is a small country the size of Hawaii and imagine what people would really like to say to us. "Get the fuck off of our land cocksuckers" is probably high up on that list.[/quote] Depends if they have the same military, political and economic power. It's not really about reputation either, two countries each have their goals and engage in such negotiations so they may achieve their mutual aims. If anyone else was offering them billions of dollars and training with their well equipped military, they'd probably take it. Also this short-sightedness over intervention. Deaths now or deaths later, your choice. [quote]Also to my recollection Devodiere is the guy who defends Israel constantly so don't get taken back when he says stupid shit like that. herf derf the enemy is there so blow up a neighborhood[/QUOTE] Hurr durr, he defends Israel so he must be stupid. Hurr, he thinks because they have hostiles who have a habit of attacking civilians in the area and violence will be inevitable that means we blow up neighbourhoods and shit. I thought you were better than this s0beit.
Now they can stop with the dumb protest.
[QUOTE=thebadboy91;30057766]I lol'd so hard when you said that the Pakistani government is not a puppet government. Can they do whatever they want in theory? Yeah, but in reality...no.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's totally a puppet government that we have total control over. That's why they're kicking us out! :downs:
Pakistan's government corruption is bad enough, good riddance, hopefully we'll stop giving them a few billion every year too
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;30058634]Yeah it's totally a puppet government that we have total control over. That's why they're kicking us out! :downs:[/QUOTE] It is more that they've complied with all of our demands and we refuse to comply with any of their demands (such as performing raids without their permission), so they are now getting sick of us, especially in how the CIA is trying to make it seem like Pakistan is supporting terrorism.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30057872]So I take it you think the Libyan intervention is wrong?[/QUOTE] Yes, while at the same time I don't recognize the right of the US to dictate what other countries do, such as France and the rest of NATO. So there would have been intervention anyway, and i don't oppose what those countries are doing simply because I don't live there and it doesn't matter what my opinion is on the matter. [QUOTE=Devodiere;30057918]Depends if they have the same military, political and economic power. It's not really about reputation either, two countries each have their goals and engage in such negotiations so they may achieve their mutual aims. If anyone else was offering them billions of dollars and training with their well equipped military, they'd probably take it. Also this short-sightedness over intervention. Deaths now or deaths later, your choice.[/quote] I'm sorry, but aims are never mutual among nations. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not valid, each country has their own interests at heart. This is true for Pakistan, Israel (as seen not just by our help but also our demands on how to run the state of Israel) and all other nations we end up building. (Meaning the USA as well) Meanwhile they do it to get money and military supplies, whether their regime is responsible enough to have those toys and treasures or not (We've backed a lot of losers, let's be honest, this isn't directed at Israel or Pakistan but rather the nations that seem to be killing their own citizens at alarming rates these days) We do it because they become loyal to us, so we can steer the direction of their policy, at the same time the government has the added benefit of appearing to do something about evil terrorists (or whatever threat, like when we backed Iraq). Also i couldn't care less if they're funded by anyone else, including China or whoever else would like to take control of their government policy. If we don't give other nations incentives to hate us, it doesn't matter who is indirectly in charge of any given nation. Meanwhile, if the US wants to bolster real national defense, that's fine. It's national offense that offends me. Also meanwhile, the nations backing other nations, like us, will end up discovering how stupid that policy is over time. [QUOTE=Devodiere;30057918] Hurr durr, he defends Israel so he must be stupid. Hurr, he thinks because they have hostiles who have a habit of attacking civilians in the area and violence will be inevitable that means we blow up neighbourhoods and shit. I thought you were better than this s0beit.[/QUOTE] Hey i never said you were stupid, i just implied that statement was stupid and that it shouldn't surprise people (due to your support of Israel you've already settled on matters such as these). Most of the time drone strikes are less about whatever organization attacking a neighborhood and more about blowing up whoever is hiding out in one. Whatever you believe about those rebels is your own business, but i challenge you to think about how people, who may not like them either, who may not know they're even there or what they do, how getting craters put into their neighborhoods might make them feel. How losing their children to a war they had nothing to do with might make them feel and how it influences their perception of whoever launched that missile. It isn't even an issue of who is right in blowing up who, it's an issue of, is that a good policy to run with, as a government? (as a matter of utility, in the fight against rebels) Now, i don't support aid or steering the direction is Israeli policy, but my recommendation would be to send foot soldiers in if you have somebody to kill, evacuate the area maybe, maybe have people think that the next time a rebel combatant is killed it won't result in an increased likelihood of themselves or their family being accidentally blown up. It angers people who might otherwise not have been as angry, it radicalizes existing terrorists more who may have never personally become violent (Yes I'm sure there's members of those organizations who haven't actually committed a violent act, them being the minority or not) and even if by accident, it means the deaths of innocent people. That is not acceptable. Finally, there's the inevitable matter of soldiers being put at "unnecessary" risk due to what i said above, while it's true it might be more dangerous to soldiers to personally have to go in and conduct raids, they're not necessarily innocent bystanders. People blown up in drone strikes are innocent under any definition of the term, like a child hit in a drive-by shooting. I feel the soldiers made their choice, honorable or not, to take up the burden of protecting their nation (just or not), it may seem colder to you, because it's a nation you respect/live in/have gone to or whatever, but i feel much less sorry for the soldier willingly putting themselves in danger or being put in dangers way by their government (although, conscription is also wrong) than the innocent bystander.
[QUOTE=thebadboy91;30057498]Let me guess, did you receive 3-4 million Afghani refugees? Daily suicide attacks in the country (some more sophisticated than others), daily drone attacks (radicalizing people even more), huge army operations INSIDE its OWN country ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bajaur[/URL], [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rah-e-Nijat[/URL], [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Swat[/URL]), NATO helicopters shooting on our border patrol, ethnic violence in Karachi, huge economic crisis (price for food is high, the common Pakistani can not afford anymore) and the list could go on.......... I laugh hard when you say that US don't need Pakistan, they NEED Pakistan in their so-called WoT. Where do you think NATO is getting supplies from? (not from Iran, that's for sure). Causalities mean that due to the failed policy laid by our own leaders + the US has made a lot of problems for Pakistan. The reason why there are bomb blasts every day in Pakistan now is that the puppet government is too corrupt to not receive their yearly dose of money (IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THE COMMON PAKISTANI). Trust me, you can not beat radicalization by bombing and killing even further (even if I WANT it to STOP right NOW). This has been proven throughout the history, when you kill 10 innocent civilians 20 others will join the extremist groups. I think it's good that you can read this from a Pakistani and not only from the US/Western POV.[/QUOTE] Youre insulting other members calling them ignorant, when your whole argument rides on a one sided view. Yes the US is killing civilians in this war, but notice that word I just typed. War. War is a conflict between two factions if you didn't know, and the other faction you think everyone is joining is a terrorist organization that purposely targets civilians. So why would civilians join a group that is also killing their friends and family because another group killed their friends and family? The civilians are being killed by both the USA and the taliban because this is a war and that is sadly one of the outcomes. The civilians are not radicals, and they will not simply transform into one. They are normal people like you and me, so lets set up a little situation. You are a civilian and your father is out getting groceries and is killed in a USA bombing. You lost your brother to a bombing by the taliban and have seen other people killed by both sides. Would you join either side? No. You would hate them both and just want both of them gone. I am not defending either faction, the USA has done many shitty things and the Pakistani government has many issues such as corruption, but youre being extremely biased in this situation. If you want people to consider your arguments and for them to "get off their high horse" I suggest you do the same. Also wikipedia isnt a very stable source, for future reference. War as you said is very complex, and you have to consider factors on both sides and when presenting an argument you should be open to the other side. This is directed to everybody.
[QUOTE=1chains1;30063668]Youre insulting other members calling them ignorant, when your whole argument rides on a one sided view. Yes the US is killing civilians in this war, but notice that word I just typed. War. War is a conflict between two factions if you didn't know, and the other faction you think everyone is joining is a terrorist organization that purposely targets civilians. So why would civilians join a group that is also killing their friends and family because another group killed their friends and family? The civilians are being killed by both the USA and the taliban because this is a war and that is sadly one of the outcomes. The civilians are not radicals, and they will not simply transform into one. They are normal people like you and me, so lets set up a little situation. You are a civilian and your father is out getting groceries and is killed in a USA bombing. You lost your brother to a bombing by the taliban and have seen other people killed by both sides. Would you join either side? No. You would hate them both and just want both of them gone. I am not defending either faction, the USA has done many shitty things and the Pakistani government has many issues such as corruption, but youre being extremely biased in this situation. If you want people to consider your arguments and for them to "get off their high horse" I suggest you do the same. Also wikipedia isnt a very stable source, for future reference. War as you said is very complex, and you have to consider factors on both sides and when presenting an argument you should be open to the other side. This is directed to everybody.[/QUOTE] I'll respond to each paragraph with a paragraph of my own so I won't have to break up a ton of quotes. The issue with the statement being made here is that you assume civilian casualties are always the result of war. The issue with such statement is that killing civilians is not a part of any kind of war doctrine. There are many leaks, most notably the wikileaks video that made huge headlines, where civilians are killed purposefully and without cause. Many killings are called "unintended consequences" but this is a simple excuse to not be at fault. If you look at how any [I]good [/I]police and swat team operates, there are never any "unintended consequences" because they properly evaluate the situation and never risk the innocent even if it would have potential to get rid of the enemy. This paragraph shows a lack of understanding of who the Taliban are. The Taliban is made up of a group of people who want their land back, and who fight for it. When Russia tried to take over Afghanistan, the US supported the Taliban. The Taliban only became our enemy when we started occupying their land and getting overly involved in their struggle to keep their land. The anti-USA sentiment grows very strong the more we get involved, which leads to more people joining the Taliban. Another big factor are the civilian killings. To put it this way, group A has stolen your land and is killing your people, wouldn't you want vengeance against group A? Your statements ignore a number of statistics that show that the Taliban numbers only increase with foreign occupation and bombings. Not surprisingly, the countries that we bomb have a lot more sympathy for the Taliban regime. I've provided sources to these before in other threads, so if you really want them I can give them, but be specific. The next situation described fails in that it assumes that if you lost a family member to a USA bombing that you've also lost a family member to a Taliban bombing. The situation also fails to incorporate the strong USA sentiment in areas where the Taliban are prevalent, and that many people blame the USA for the suicide bombings and violence. Pakistan didn't have any issues with the Taliban or such violence before USA involvement and the war against terror, and we are clearly the biggest cause in to all of this violence. In this paragraph you're trying to give yourself credibility by claiming that you aren't biased. You are also trying to take away credibility by calling your opponents extreme, and suggesting that wiki can't be used as a source. Where this runs into conflict is that you're only question wiki as a source because it is common to do. If he was to have cited a real source, you have just ignored it. The last paragraph is to say that you should be somewhere in the middle. I disagree, your opinion should be made by looking at both sides, and staying towards the middle isn't particularly an option unless both sides are shown to equally as murky. The argument being made is that they aren't, and evidence is provided to support that. The retort to that argument can not simply be "it's more complex than that".
[QUOTE=Pepin;30064527]I'll respond to each paragraph with a paragraph of my own so I won't have to break up a ton of quotes. The issue with the statement being made here is that you assume civilian casualties are always the result of war. The issue with such statement is that killing civilians is not a part of any kind of war doctrine. There are many leaks, most notably the wikileaks video that made huge headlines, where civilians are killed purposefully and without cause. Many killings are called "unintended consequences" but this is a simple excuse to not be at fault. If you look at how any [I]good [/I]police and swat team operates, there are never any "unintended consequences" because they properly evaluate the situation and never risk the innocent even if it would have potential to get rid of the enemy. This paragraph shows a lack of understanding of who the Taliban are. The Taliban is made up of a group of people who want their land back, and who fight for it. When Russia tried to take over Afghanistan, the US supported the Taliban. The Taliban only became our enemy when we started occupying their land and getting overly involved in their struggle to keep their land. The anti-USA sentiment grows very strong the more we get involved, which leads to more people joining the Taliban. Another big factor are the civilian killings. To put it this way, group A has stolen your land and is killing your people, wouldn't you want vengeance against group A? Your statements ignore a number of statistics that show that the Taliban numbers only increase with foreign occupation and bombings. Not surprisingly, the countries that we bomb have a lot more sympathy for the Taliban regime. I've provided sources to these before in other threads, so if you really want them I can give them, but be specific. The next situation described fails in that it assumes that if you lost a family member to a USA bombing that you've also lost a family member to a Taliban bombing. The situation also fails to incorporate the strong USA sentiment in areas where the Taliban are prevalent, and that many people blame the USA for the suicide bombings and violence. Pakistan didn't have any issues with the Taliban or such violence before USA involvement and the war against terror, and we are clearly the biggest cause in to all of this violence. In this paragraph you're trying to give yourself credibility by claiming that you aren't biased. You are also trying to take away credibility by calling your opponents extreme, and suggesting that wiki can't be used as a source. Where this runs into conflict is that you're only question wiki as a source because it is common to do. If he was to have cited a real source, you have just ignored it. The last paragraph is to say that you should be somewhere in the middle. I disagree, your opinion should be made by looking at both sides, and staying towards the middle isn't particularly an option unless both sides are shown to equally as murky. The argument being made is that they aren't, and evidence is provided to support that. The retort to that argument can not simply be "it's more complex than that".[/QUOTE] I will respond to each of yours via a paragraph as well. Civilian casualties are part of war sir. While it is expected to minimize the casualties, they are unavoidable, especially when you are fighting an enemy composed of what appears to be civilians. With this comes factors of desensitization and paranoia that can cause soldiers to act out. Most of our soldiers have the goal to protect citizens, but there will always be screwed up individuals who get through the system. Again, this is part of war. We are at a technology age where a large umber of countries have caught up communication wise with the USA/UK/ etc. So now we can see all the horrors of war with so much greater ease then before. We have been involved in the middle east for 10 years, it is expected to have errors and casualties. Your example of swat and police is inappropriate because SWAT and police do commit human casualties but the biggest logical fallacy is that they are not in a war zone. A police officer knows that they are going after a bank robber, a SWAT officer knows he is trying to break into a home with crack addicts. A soldier is fighting a person who has not been identified and will often strike without warning so the target quickly becomes an uncertain figure. Furthermore you say in your example "at least the good police and swat do not commit casualties" this voids the argument because youre reviewing the USA soldiers in whole including the "good" and "bad" so you must include the "bad" SWAT and police as well. Again, youre ignoring how the taliban operate. As I blatantly said, the US has done bad things and I understand the taliban's goal. What you do not take into consideration is how they target civilians in their goals and use terror tactics. You keep saying all these statistics and factors, but not one source has been posted. You are putting a correlation between bombings and taliban recruits, yet you do not know if they are directly related. While some of it may be related to that, the general population dislikes the taliban as much as the US. The taliban no longer own that land, the civilians do and I highly doubt they want terrorists who kill them to run their government. The USA has way too much influence on the politics and the pakistan government needs to be revised, but the taliban will not bring stability to the region. Now then, with the next argument, you could also say that a family member didnt lose a person to the USA but the taliban, so that too becomes void. People regardless if it is a family member or a stranger, still see the cruelty committed by the taliban and do not support them. They want both the USA and taliban gone. Youre forgetting the important variable known as fear. The taliban again are a terrorist organization and thus use fear to control civilians, particularly dense villages. A civilian helping the taliban does not mean he supports it, but may be bound by the threat of harm to family or himself. Yes the USA funded the taliban and that is their price to pay, but the excuse that the USA is the sole cause of the terror being committed by them is a very ignorant statement. Do you think they would support the current republic established in Pakistan? They have no care for morals or human rights and to give them power would equate to suffering of the people. Now then, these all come down to opinions, so credibility is not an issue. I neither support the USA or Pakistani or Taliban so I find myself quite unbiased, though it is impossible to be fully unbiased. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone in particular and or have outdated information, thus making it an unstable source of information. Here I find the biggest chink in your argument because you assume I am bandwagoning on the wiki hate and then even go further to think I would ignore a legitimate source when you have no reason to prove that I would. I even ask go as far to ask people to be open minded showing I would have done the exact OPPOSITE. The argument IS more complex than that. That is why this after 10 years is still a controversy and this argument pops up in every thread. Nothing is ever black or white but a million shades of gray. Just in this argument alone I pointed out a few variables you did not take into consideration. You say one side clearly isnt murky, because some sources prove it, yet not once in all of your claims did you post a legitimate source of the information provided. Finally, before you ask for my sources, my argument is set from a psychological standpoint on how people would act under given circumstances and thus cannot really be proved unless an actaul study was done. This could very well mean my opinion is wrong, but seeing as I have refuted most of your points and used the magic of common sense, I doubt it.
Too bad the USA won't withdraw from the entire Middle East. We need to stop fucking about in everyone else's business. Let them figure it out for themselves.
[QUOTE=s0beit;30062089]I'm sorry, but aims are never mutual among nations. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not valid, each country has their own interests at heart. This is true for Pakistan, Israel (as seen not just by our help but also our demands on how to run the state of Israel) and all other nations we end up building. (Meaning the USA as well) Meanwhile they do it to get money and military supplies, whether their regime is responsible enough to have those toys and treasures or not (We've backed a lot of losers, let's be honest, this isn't directed at Israel or Pakistan but rather the nations that seem to be killing their own citizens at alarming rates these days) We do it because they become loyal to us, so we can steer the direction of their policy, at the same time the government has the added benefit of appearing to do something about evil terrorists (or whatever threat, like when we backed Iraq). Also i couldn't care less if they're funded by anyone else, including China or whoever else would like to take control of their government policy. If we don't give other nations incentives to hate us, it doesn't matter who is indirectly in charge of any given nation. Meanwhile, if the US wants to bolster real national defense, that's fine. It's national offense that offends me. Also meanwhile, the nations backing other nations, like us, will end up discovering how stupid that policy is over time.[/quote] I know that and everyone else knows it too. Everyone has their own interests but when there is a bit of overlap in our actions in getting to those interests, we can work together. We don't really aim to steer their country with it, that's a diplomatic issue that runs on the side. The only thing funding them seeks to do is focus their intention on something that is in our mutual interests. It is a poor thing to do and they are being incompetent dicks, but we have little choice. It's not like the Taliban are also running over the border into Tajikistan and we can get them there instead, we have to work with Pakistan if we actually want to get something done. Also about the hating, people will hate regardless. The US' many international economic ventures like their interest in Saudi Oil, their cultural impact both with the technology and mass of media they produce and their weapons dealing, people can hate enough for that. We are a major factor, an enemy, us not being there isn't going to stop the impact we have. [quote]Hey i never said you were stupid, i just implied that statement was stupid and that it shouldn't surprise people (due to your support of Israel you've already settled on matters such as these). Most of the time drone strikes are less about whatever organization attacking a neighborhood and more about blowing up whoever is hiding out in one. Whatever you believe about those rebels is your own business, but i challenge you to think about how people, who may not like them either, who may not know they're even there or what they do, how getting craters put into their neighborhoods might make them feel. How losing their children to a war they had nothing to do with might make them feel and how it influences their perception of whoever launched that missile. It isn't even an issue of who is right in blowing up who, it's an issue of, is that a good policy to run with, as a government? (as a matter of utility, in the fight against rebels) Now, i don't support aid or steering the direction is Israeli policy, but my recommendation would be to send foot soldiers in if you have somebody to kill, evacuate the area maybe, maybe have people think that the next time a rebel combatant is killed it won't result in an increased likelihood of themselves or their family being accidentally blown up. It angers people who might otherwise not have been as angry, it radicalizes existing terrorists more who may have never personally become violent (Yes I'm sure there's members of those organizations who haven't actually committed a violent act, them being the minority or not) and even if by accident, it means the deaths of innocent people. That is not acceptable. Finally, there's the inevitable matter of soldiers being put at "unnecessary" risk due to what i said above, while it's true it might be more dangerous to soldiers to personally have to go in and conduct raids, they're not necessarily innocent bystanders. People blown up in drone strikes are innocent under any definition of the term, like a child hit in a drive-by shooting. I feel the soldiers made their choice, honorable or not, to take up the burden of protecting their nation (just or not), it may seem colder to you, because it's a nation you respect/live in/have gone to or whatever, but i feel much less sorry for the soldier willingly putting themselves in danger or being put in dangers way by their government (although, conscription is also wrong) than the innocent bystander.[/QUOTE] Even though the effects of such things may cause more to grow from it, what can be done? Take action or don't, leave them to operate freely or risk creating more. The only real option is to deal with it as cleanly as possible to prevent more of them popping up. It's not always possible to do that but their best efforts in doing so will have to be enough. The drones are a better option, maybe not as good as sending in ground troops but better than anything else they would take. They can pinpoint a single house in a neighbourhood and leave the rest untouched, their destructive potential is greatly overestimated. Sending in a ground team is preferable but when that is impossible or a suicide mission, drones are the next best option. Funnily enough, they do prefer to send in ground troops, they know all this just as well as any of us. The problems start occurring when they place these targets in heavily fortified areas making it impossible for ground troops to get close without compromising the operation. It also occurs when they are not allowed to send in ground troops eg. Pakistan and Gaza. Afghanistan and the West Bank, they can send in guys and do it right, Pakistan and Gaza, they're against occupation so they don't let troops in to do it. They may have their concerns, but they are preventing the best option.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;30056940]I'd give it 3-4 years.[/QUOTE] I would bet on a fast radicalization of the current goverment.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30071525']I would bet on a fast radicalization of the current goverment.[/QUOTE] What? Please explain.
"oh hey guys our shit is totally out of control right now but we don't need any help kthxbai"
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30071525']I would bet on a fast radicalization of the current goverment.[/QUOTE] This is the Pakistan that blocked Facebook and was thinking about executing people for Blasphemy on Draw Muhammad day. They have similar religious laws to Iran, only with a proper democratic system, poorer and less educated people and their rage directed at India instead of internally. [editline]27th May 2011[/editline] They've also been doing this since the 50s so don't expect entropy any time soon.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30071639]What? Please explain.[/QUOTE] They'll stop supporting NATO and become more radical.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30064527] When Russia tried to take over Afghanistan, the US supported the Taliban.[/quote] That was the Mujahideen. The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30071871']They'll stop supporting NATO and become more radical.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I suppose that's possible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.