Article for Thought

June 15, 2006

I recall shortly after the bombings of 9/11, a lot of people even on this site were up in arms and ready for battle.

This morning I came across this article about Christianity and the War.

http://clicks.aweber.com/z/ct/?ZbZErypMqQfRmnu9SAq_Mw

June 15, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

But politics or no politics the war in Iraq is an unconstitutional, unnecessary, immoral, senseless, unjust, and unscriptural undertaking. It is unconstitutional because only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is unnecessary because Iraq was no threat to the United States. It is immoral because it was based on lies. It is unjust because it is not defensive. It is senseless be<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

cause over 2,400 U.S. soldiers have died in vain.

And this is the reason that I opposed the war....

And now we have a responsibility to repair what we broke. My biggest fear is that it will break us economically. Already inflation is coming back, according to last night's news. Economically, we are regressing back into the early '80s.

And that is sad.

June 15, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

unconstitutional, unnecessary, immoral, senseless, unjust, and unscriptural undertaking. It is unconstitutional because only Congress has the authority to declare war.

It would be slightly more convincing if it simply got the basic facts straight.

Anyone who actually studies history knows a couple of things.

1) Congress specifically authorized the President to use whatever force he deemed necessary.

Even John Kerry and Hillary Clinton admit they voted for it. This is a fact.

2) Since 1900, the U.S. has been involved militarily in a number of places without a formal declaration of war. Constitutional scholars recognize that this was not unconstitutional.

So when the diatribe begins with a false statement, easily checked out on the web, that's a good indication of the quality of reasoning in the rest of the article.

And the few short statements in the quote indicate the writer is completely ignorant-- or at least ignoring -- a lot of other facts. Basically it's a fantasy.

As a writer, if I turned in such a manuscript, it would not only be rejected, I would lose all credibility with that editor.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. But no one's entitled to their own facts.

June 15, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. But no one's entitled to their own facts.

This is about the only true statement in the whole post.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Even John Kerry and Hillary Clinton admit they voted for it. This is a fact.

Based upon the supposed "facts" that the administration gave to them, yeah, even I thought we should go to war for a short time. Unfortunately, this hawkish conservative administration, who spends our boys lives like drinking water,filtered information and lied to the american people by emphasising and playing upon the fears of the American people.

In all honesty, this administration should be brought up on crimes against the american people, killing our young men and women for thier selfish interests.

And THAT, Ed, is the conclusion of the facts.

June 15, 2006

Do you dispute that virtually every intelligence agency in the world gave the same warnings?

Do you dispute that congress voted to authorize the war. Including Democrats on the intelligence committees, who had direct access to the intelligence?

Do you dispute that the U.S. has legally engaged in military activities in numerou situations without a formal declaration of war? (two examples: Nicaragua inthe 1920's and Bosnia in the 1990's. There are many, many more, such as the Dominican Republid in 1965).

What frightens me most about so much of what goes on here, is the eagerness to believe the worst about people, based on an unreasoning leap to conclusions.

For example

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

killing our young men and women for thier selfish interests.

Are you totally ignorant about the difference between willing one's service and willing one's death?

If a salesmen is sent to a convention, but dies in a plane crash, that doesn't constitute "killing." Even though, every time one travels, there is a statistical possibility that one will die. The boss knew there was a risk.

And yes, it is essentially the same. The tasks and risks are different, but in a continuum, not sheerly different.

Construction would be another example. Risks are inherent in the job. Farming is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. That doesn't mean someone who dies while farming was "killed" by the person who hired him to farm.

This is just casual slander. Unbecoming a civil person, much less a professed Christian.

ONe of the meanest, lowest forms of human behavior is evil surmising. Indeed, it easily becomes a form of pathology.

There was a thread about improving ClubAdventist. Outlawing that sort of careless accusation would be a great start. It would certainly make it more Christian.

June 15, 2006

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thankyousign.gif" alt="" /> Very thought provoking and I would hope action provoking for any serious Christian even romotely interseted in furthering the gospel of the Prince of Peace.

But sadly, as so quickly exhibited by the immediately ensuing exercises in missing the point of non sequitor commentary, many wil be turned off, turned aside and otherwise led astray.

In hopes that this could get <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/focus.gif" alt="" /> the primary and essential point of the essay is that war in general, and this war in particular, is totally contrary to Christian principles.

Tom

June 16, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Do you dispute that virtually every intelligence agency in the world gave the same warnings?

If you were president, who are you going to listen to? YOur own intelligence agencies, or that of rival intelligence agencys, whose history has always been to embarrass the US?

At best, our intelligence agencys were giving conflicting messages....in addition to the BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS of the world who were already in IRAQ, pleading with the US to show/share intell with them as to where the WMD were. No matter how you slice the intel, it was conflicted. Not really a good bet to go to war on...Makes the country look stupid. And boy, do we [aka The United States] look stupid!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Do you dispute that congress voted to authorize the war. Including Democrats on the intelligence committees, who had direct access to the intelligence?

If our own intelligence agencys were conflicted from the evidence, do you think any rational being in those committees were in a position to make definative conclusions? The assumption was over powering along with an over active adminstration who claimed, "We KNOW where those WMD are!"!!!! It was the chant from Bush and Cheny and Condi. And they presented a united front on this issue....and they were also wrong.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

What frightens me most about so much of what goes on here, is the eagerness to believe the worst about people, based on an unreasoning leap to conclusions.

And what frightens me is the willingness of conservative republicans to defend so called "leaders", who make war for no apparent reason. Our country used to call this type of war,

"murder". Now we have supposed christian defending this type of actions in our leaders... What does that make US????

Stupid AND arrogant.

The bible said it best, Pride goeth before the fall.....

June 16, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Anyone who actually studies history knows a couple of things.

1) Congress specifically authorized the President to use whatever force he deemed necessary.

Even John Kerry and Hillary Clinton admit they voted for it. This is a fact.

Not only that, but since Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973 a war has never been declared although President Carter tried a limited invasion of Iran to rescue hostages. President Reagon invaded Granada and bombed Lybia. President Bush invaded Somolia and Panama and drove Iraq out of Kuwait. President Clinton kept troops in Somolia and sent them into Bosnia. Then President GW Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Of all these conflicts only twice was Congress asked to authorize the use of force, as per the War Powers Act of 1973. It is reasonable to believe that no President of the US will ever ask Congress to declare war again unless the Supreme Court strikes down the War Powers Act of 1973 as being unconstitutional - which some Constitutional scholors believe it to be. Authorizing the use of force is how Congress declares war in the post 1973 era.

June 16, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Not only that, but since Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973 a war has never been declared although President Carter tried a limited invasion of Iran to rescue hostages. President Reagon invaded Granada and bombed Lybia. President Bush invaded Somolia and Panama and drove Iraq out of Kuwait. President Clinton kept troops in Somolia and sent them into Bosnia. Then President GW Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Of all these conflicts only twice was Congress asked to authorize the use of force, as per the War Powers Act of 1973. It is reasonable to believe that no President of the US will ever ask Congress to declare war again unless the Supreme Court strikes down the War Powers Act of 1973 as being unconstitutional - which some Constitutional scholors believe it to be. Authorizing the use of force is how Congress declares war in the post 1973 era.

That still does not excuse the Christian from exercising his voice for MORALITY in war, as well as in sexual matters. This war is unjustifiable by CHRISTIAN standards....

June 16, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That still does not excuse the Christian from exercising his voice for MORALITY in war, as well as in sexual matters. This war is unjustifiable by CHRISTIAN standards....

It's pointless to discuss something as important as morality with someone who refuses to acknowledge basic facts.

Since you specialize in specious moral outrage founded on evil surmising, free any facts, it's impossible to have a discussion.

We'd just be debating one or another aspects of your personal fantasies. Not interesting, because your fantasies are predictable, not enlightening, because the thought processes are inchoate.

The issue of the Iraq war is one over which reasonable people might disagree. But reasonable people start with facts, not just shouting.

June 16, 2006

With the news tha Neil would be absent for a month, I decided to let CA be politics-free for a while. Then this thread came along. So here's what I wanted to share:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ralph Peters, New York Post, June 14, 2006 -- JUNE has been a miserable month for our left-wing media.

First, the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi forced the alleged "massacre" at Haditha off Page One, frustrating media attempts to manufacture a sequel to Abu Ghraib. Then, President Bush made a midnight ride to Baghdad to put one very important pair of boots on the ground. He didn't hug the airport, either, but crossed the city to the Green Zone for a face-to-face with Iraq's new prime minister. It was a brave and inspiring act. And a worthy one.

Strategically wise, good for Iraqi and American morale - and, yes, politically savvy - the president's trip blew apart the media's effort to recover from their loss of Zarqawi.

It also shut down their bid to refocus our attention on the suicides of three poor, deprived terrorists at Guantanamo - thugs we're expected to mourn as victims of our inhumanity. Hate-America journalists just can't get a break these days.

But they're still trying. One cable-news anchor yesterday asked if Bush's visit to Iraq was a "publicity stunt." Her own network's correspondent shot that down, on-air. True reporters know a missile can kill a president as easily as a private.

The Gitmo suicide-trifecta was the real publicity stunt. This accurate statement should never have been retracted: It was an act of asymmetrical warfare. And every save-the-terrorists jerk behind a mike knows it in his or her shriveled bleeding heart.

The strategic momentum has shifted. Fighting a terrorist movement takes time, sometimes a frustrating amount of it. But Bush's trip drove home some undeniable facts:

* The American president can go to Baghdad. And our enemies can't stop him. And the White House didn't black out news of this visit until the prez was wheels-up for home; word broke while he was still in the Green Zone. One big Bronx cheer for the bad guys - for whom Bush's visit was a humiliation.

* Iraq has an elected, functioning government of a quality that deserved a presidential visit. Image matters in the Arab world, and the symbolism of our president going to Baghdad to confer with Iraq's prime minister instantly raised that new government's stature.

* Americans aren't quitters. As Bush pointed out to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, when Americans give their word, we stick to it - at least under this president. The terrorists and their media sympathizers haven't been able to budge us. And we won't come back 'til it's over, over there.

* Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead and won't easily be replaced. The months ahead will still see plenty of violence, but Iraq's already better off.

* The hundreds of raids and arrests of terrorists in the wake of Zarqawi's death have received scant media coverage (those three sweet, virtuous Gitmo terrorists were more important, you see), but this is huge news.

Once you crack a terror system open, one success leads to another. For a long time, the terrorists held the tactical initiative; now we've grabbed it. It's a credit to fine intelligence work, good soldiering - and to the Iraqis struggling to save their country.

* One presidential visit to Baghdad is worth a thousand pathetic declarations of defeat from Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy - none of whom has shown the least respect for the democratically elected and courageous leaders of reborn Iraq.

Bush's visit forced the media to briefly stop whining about the phony issues of Haditha and Gitmo and to acknowledge that Iraq has a free, functioning government. But for ambitious journalists, inventing or exaggerating American misdeeds will always be more rewarding than telling the truth: Zarqawi's death was written off, while Haditha was written up.

Still, glints of truth force their way through. And the truth is: We've got a president with guts; our efforts in Iraq are paying off, and their new government is far more important to Iraqis than Gitmo or Haditha.

Yesterday, President Bush dominated the news. And the news was good. Tomorrow, the America-haters in the press will try again to convince you that nothing our president, our soldiers or free Iraqis do can make a difference.

You know better.

June 16, 2006

Here is the heart of the article for "thought" that started this thread.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Waging the war is against Christian "just war" principles. Conducting the war is contrary to the whole spirit of the New Testament. Fighting the war is in opposition to the practice of the early church. Participants in the war violate the express teaching of the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Supporters of the war violate the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

1)Waging the war is against Christian "just war" principles.

That is debatable, not concluded. In any case, the just war doctrine itself is debatable. For example, it says that a war should only be conducted if there is reasonable chance of success.

So one should only oppose a Hitler if there is reasonable chance for success? In that case, Churchill should have surrendered in 1940. Historians pretty much agree that England was in fact already defeated militarily, but Churchill wouldn't let England give up. So Churchill, in opposing Nazism from 1940-1943, violated the just war doctrine.

2)

Conducting the war is contrary to the whole spirit of the New Testament.

Interesting that he should divorce the New Testament from the Old, and that so many Christians should go along with that. But it's simply false. Rev. 19 is one example. We have several encounters of Christ or an Apostle with a Roman Centurion, whose profession was war-- and rarely just war, by any standard. Yet never did Jesus or Peter suggest these men change their profession. These men in every case professed faith, and had their faith rewarded. Yet, unlike the rich young ruler, Jesuse never told them to change professions.

We are to render to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus also said that if His kingdom were of this world, his followers would fight for it. From these two texts, it's a reasonable inference that citizens of Earthly kingdoms may owe military service, and should therefore render it. This is more than hinted at in the "going the second mile" sayings, which were specifically military obligations of ordinary subjects.

3)

Fighting the war is in opposition to the practice of the early church.

Understandable, since they were often the subjects of persecution. But then, having separate buildings called "churches" and letting women participate was also in opposition to the practice of the early church. The practice of the early church specifically included slavery. So, while the practice of the early church may be instructive, it is far from normative.

4)

Participants in the war violate the express teaching of the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

Then so did David, and Solomon, and Moses, and Joshua, and everyone who participated in war in the OT. Yet that is clearly not the case, both from the Biblical narratives about these individuals, and from the language of the commandment. Hebrew scholars will tell you that the word translated "kill" is better translated "murder." Different then, different now.

Interesting, too, that those who decry this war urge us to be sympathetic to those who continually practice murder and celebrate the murderers.

5)

Supporters of the war violate the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

That one's just breathtakingly irrelevant. One doesn't have to worship the country or the government to believe that people going to work or sightseeing should not be targets of murderers.

The Bible is also adamant that murderers should be punished.

A lot of the article for "thought" is hyperventilating about the evil of war.

Well, war is definitely evil. That's not in question. But is war the "ultimate" evil? In a perfect world, we would need neither government nor police nor armies. They are all, to some degree, evil. Yet Romans 13 makes it clear that they are nonetheless ordained by God. How can this be?

Because with sin, a whole avalanche of evil was unleashed on this world. Death, thorns, disease. But some things, which, in a perfect world would not exist, become necessary in a world filled with evil.

Death is clearly an evil thing. Predation is evil. Yet in a world of sin, death puts a limit on how much any individual can inflict on others. Predation eliminates the sick and diseased from prey populations.

War is evil. Unfortunately, it is sometimes a necessary evil. The question whether this particular war is a necessary evil has never been addressed by the left. Because they simply deny facts that don't fit into their preferred fantasy, and demonstrate an ignorance of history.

June 17, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It's pointless to discuss something as important as morality with someone who refuses to acknowledge basic facts

It's pretty well common knowledge among debating circles that when you can not lead with counter facts, but instead, lead with attacking the person, you have lost the debate.

And this is typical of your pattern, Ed. You have pretty much lost the debate because you can not find counter facts to support your position.

Oh well, I will just have to use the emotional baggage filter AGAIN, as I usually do...But we still love you anyway, Ed...regardless of your [somewhat lost] position... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

June 17, 2006

Ah, you did put your thoughts up here.....And a good round of thought when into this rebuttal....

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Here is the heart of the article for "thought" that started this thread.

Unfortunately, your rebuttal takes out of context those principles the origional article expounded, and sets it in a different context, making the principles look...for lack of a better word..wrong.

Concider the context- you said regarding Waging the war is against Christian "just war" principles.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That is debatable, not concluded. In any case, the just war doctrine itself is debatable. For example, it says that [:"red"] a war should only be conducted if there is reasonable chance of success.[/]

[:"green"] Waging this war [iraq war] is against every Christian "just war" principle that has ever been formulated. A just war must have a just cause, be in proportion to the gravity of the situation, have obtainable objectives, be preceded by a public declaration, be declared only by legitimate authority, and only be undertaken as a last resort. If there was ever a war that violated every one of these principles it is this war. [/]

And regarding the "Conducting the war is contrary to the whole spirit of the New Testament. ", you said,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

We have several encounters of Christ or an Apostle with a Roman Centurion, whose profession was war-- and rarely just war, by any standard. Yet never did Jesus or Peter suggest these men change their profession.

[:"green"] Charles Spurgeon, known as "the prince of preachers," remarked about Christianity and War:

The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace ; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel. [/]

And regarding the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", you stated

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Interesting, too, that those who decry this war urge us to be sympathetic to those who continually practice murder and celebrate the murderers.

My only reply to this is -

Who, in the public media, is doing this????? Is there a leading figure of someone reported by MAINSTEAM media, who is "sympathetic to those who continually practice murder and celebrate the murderers?"..I see no "Peter Jennings" nor "Walter Cronkite" doing what you apparently see...at least, no one in the mainstream media...

You also stated-

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Hebrew scholars will tell you that the word translated "kill" is better translated "murder." Different then, different now.

That is a matter of opinion, as there are translation committees who stand by thier works and thier translations and use the word "kill". Never the less, when a Christian man...or woman...goes to war, they go with the purpose to murder...that is, they go with the knowledge that they will kill someone...That is quite simply, the example of murder, that is, preplanned knowelege that you will kill someone. [:"blue"] The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice [/] and "thou shalt not kill" is a commandment that make it unlawful to kill someone.

Your post says much, and I could rebut more...but I find myself getting lazy and not wanting to labor over every incident in your post...I will let other pick on other points...

However, there is one conclusion that you wrote that I will comment on.... you stated-

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

War is evil. Unfortunately, it is sometimes a necessary evil. The question whether this particular war is a necessary evil has never been addressed by the left. Because they simply deny facts that don't fit into their preferred fantasy, and demonstrate an ignorance of history.

This article went step by step in addressing the many cases FOR the war that the Bush administration advanced...and it rebutted every single one of them....Just because you refuse to see, doesn't mean that they were not addressed... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

But how come "war is necessary evil"? When the greeks were conquered by the romans [via war], greek culture flourished. The greeks conquered the romans thru culture as the romans adopted the greeks gods/goddess and renamed them. The archecture developed by the greeks was assimilated and predominate for many hundreds of years following the war. The justice system and political systems were adopted by Romam culture as they determined it to be more fair for the people as a whole. Granted, with time, they improved upon each of these cultural aspects, but generally speaking, at least in the early stages of the Roman empire, while greece sucumbed to Rome from the war, Greece conqured Rome thru culture....

June 17, 2006

Recent research shows that Rome originally began as a Greek colony. So it is no wonder that Rome preserved Greek culture, and Greek was the universal language of business throughout the Roman Empire. This is why the New Testament was originally written in Greek.

June 18, 2006

Dulce bellum inexpertis "war is sweet to those who have not experienced it"

The oxymoronic idea of a "just war" has been described as merely a "preliminary violence reduction theory."

Tom

June 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Waging this war [iraq war] is against every Christian "just war" principle that has ever been formulated.

That's a knee-slapper.

June 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The oxymoronic idea of a "just war"

I agree that "just war" is an odd combination of words. Kind of like "Biblical divorce".

June 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Waging this war [iraq war] is against every Christian "just war" principle that has ever been formulated.

That's a knee-slapper.

Looks to me like you forgot to read the article, again Shane....

June 18, 2006

It is simple. Self-defense is a justifiable reason for war. Saddam misled the world to believe he had WMDs. Russian intelligence believed he was going to use them with terrorists to attack the US on US soil. President Bush responded to that threat. Over 30 other nations agreed with the intelligence and supported the action.

Once we got into Iraq we realized there were no WMDs but we discovered the oil-for-food scandel and Saddam's plan to use it to get sanctions lifted and resume his WMDs programs. So the issue wasn't as urgent as the world believed it was but without invading, we would have never known that.

June 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It is simple. Self-defense is a justifiable reason for war.

And where were we being attacked????

June 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Russian intelligence believed he was going to use them with terrorists to attack the US on US soil.

June 18, 2006

Russian intel has a history of attempting to coup or one up our inteligence services...Why should we trust them when our own intel did not have the scoup and was giving conflicting reports? In addition to that, Hans Blix kept asking the American intel where the WMDS were located and we suddenly went silient...WE DIDN"T KNOW 'CUS WE COULDN'T TELL!.

June 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Saddam misled the world to believe he had WMDs.

How? By saying he didn't have them, by letting in UN weapons inspectors who said he didn't have them, and by not having them?

SADDAM AND THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS TOLD BUSH THE TRUTH AND BUSH DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The president, [:"red"]unimpressed by the presentation of satellite photographs and intercepts[/], pressed Tenet and McLaughlin, saying their information would not "convince Joe Public" and asking Tenet, [:"red"]"This is the best we've got?"[/] Woodward reports.

According to Woodward, Tenet reassured the president that "it's a slam dunk case" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

In his CBS interview, Woodward said he "asked the president about this, and he said it was very important to have the CIA director, 'slam-dunk' is as I interpreted it, a sure thing, guaranteed."

About two weeks later, shortly after New Year's Day 2003, Bush -- frustrated with unfruitful U.N. weapons inspections -- made up his mind to go to war after consulting with Rice, according to Woodward.

In short, Bush KNEW his evidence was inadequate, but choose to believe one of his trained yes-men lackies.

/Bevin

June 18, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Why should we trust them when our own intel did not have the scoup and was giving conflicting reports?

Hindsight is 20/20. The intelligence communities of the world were convinced Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam's own intelligence service believed he had them. Just before the coalition invaded, Saddam's generals asked for the WMDs and Saddam had to tell them he didn't have them.

It is pure politics to doubt President Bush had bad motives. Had Gore won we would have been in there faster. President Bush dragged his feet for months before invading Iraq. I seriously doubt Gore would have taken so much time.

And it turns out the Russian intel was that far off. Saddam had talked about using terrorists to attack the US on US soil with WMDs... but it was in 1996. So the intel was outdated. But we would have never known that either if we hadn't invaded.

Sign In

Article for Thought

Recommended Posts

ChildofChrist

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tom Wetmore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ron Lambert

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tom Wetmore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse