Iraq, Afghan wars reportedly strain U.S. fighting ability

May 4, 2005

Looks like we can't take on Syria nor North Korea...

[:"blue"]

From Kathleen Koch

CNN Washington Bureau

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 Posted: 1:19 PM EDT (1719 GMT)

story.myers.ap.jpg

Gen. Richard Myers testifies last week on Capitol Hill.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has issued a report to Congress that said the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could hamstring the U.S. ability to fight other wars, a senior military official told CNN.

The chairman, Gen. Richard Myers, supplied the report, an annual document on the U.S. military's ability to carry out war plans, to the lawmakers.

In a news conference last week, President Bush said Myers told him that "we have plenty of capacity."

Bush said he asked the general, "Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq?

"And the answer is, no, he doesn't feel we're limited," Bush said.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy reiterated Tuesday the president's belief that the military is prepared for whatever it may face.

"We are at war, and that level of operations does have some impact on troops," Duffy said. "But the president continues to be confident, as well as his military commanders, that we can meet any threat decisively."

The senior military official told CNN that because of the U.S. deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the report concludes that future armed conflicts would last longer and produce higher casualties.

The report finds that the United States still would have the ability to win another military face-off but wouldn't be able to build up its forces as quickly as it did for the Iraq war.

"It would be harder to sprint that fast," the official said.

The report cites areas in particular stress: stockpiles of precision weapons and the availability of pre-positioned equipment, including vehicles, and reserve units -- who are providing much of the combat support in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman downplayed the findings, calling the report an "internal management tool."

"What is certain is the U.S. military remains capable of executing every mission it is assigned," Whitman said.

But he acknowledged fighting multiple conflicts simultaneously can put stress on forces.

"If you're doing A, B and C and are asked to do D, will D be harder? Sure," Whitman said.

Speaking at his news conference Thursday, the president said that while troop levels were down in South Korea, for example, "we traded troops for new equipment."

"We brought ... our troop levels down in South Korea but replaced those troops with more capacity," Bush said. [/]

May 4, 2005

[:"blue"]WASHINGTON -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has issued a tough warning to North Korea that the United States is well able to defend itself and its allies against nuclear and missile threats.

And South Korea on Tuesday dismissed claims that North Korea is preparing to conduct an underground nuclear test, Yonhap news agency reported.

South Korea's Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung told reporters in Seoul: "We've not yet seen any signs (of a nuclear test)."

He was responding to a report in the Chosun Ilbo newspaper that claimed the United States had told South Korea that U.S. intelligence authorities recently detected signs North Korea was preparing for an underground test in the northeastern region of the isolated communist state.

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon had dismissed the possibility of North Korea conducting a nuclear weapons test in the near future.

Also on Monday, Rice -- responding to North Korea's apparent launch of a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan on Sunday -- said in Washington: "I don't think there should be any doubt about our ability to deter whatever the North Koreans are up to."

Rice told reporters: "This is not just between the United States and North Korea."

Sunday's short-range missile launch is the latest twist in a string of incidents over the past week that has refocused international attention on the nuclear standoff in the Korean peninsula.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told CNN Sunday, "It appears that there was a test of a short-range missile by the North Koreans, and it landed in the Sea of Japan."

State Department spokesman Curtis Cooper issued a statement saying the test apparently took place Sunday.

"We are continuing to look into this," he said. "We are consulting closely with governments in the region. We have long been concerned about North Korea's missile program and activities, and urge North Korea to continue its moratorium on ballistic missile tests."

Card, on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," said, "We're not surprised by this. The North Koreans have tested their missiles before. They've had some failures."

North Korea tested missiles in 2003, and in 1998 it test-fired a missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean. Both triggered a great deal of concern in Japan.

Card said the United States was working to restart stalled six-party talks aimed at reaching an accord, which began in 2003 but have yielded no breakthrough.

"We have to work together with our allies around the world -- especially the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Russians and the Chinese -- to demonstrate that North Korea's actions are inappropriate," he said. "We don't want them to have any nuclear weapons, we don't want the Korean peninsula to have any nuclear weapons on it."

But Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, told "Late Edition" the latest test showed the U.S. refusal to hold talks directly with Pyongyang was leading to an even greater nuclear threat.

In addition to the multilateral talks, Levin said, the Bush administration should "talk directly to the North Koreans. That's what's been missing. ... It has led to real failure in these policies. The nuclear threat is increasing from North Korea as a result."

Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said North Korea lied to the United States in the bilateral talks during the Clinton presidency.

Rice said North Korea's missile program should be put on the agenda when and if the talks were resumed, AP reported.

Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said after a 40-minute meeting with Rice at the State Department that they hoped China would try harder to get six-party negotiations resumed.

The United States, Japan, China, South Korea and Russia hope to negotiate an end to North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for security assurances and economic benefits.

Talks were supposed to be resumed last September, but North Korea withdrew its promise to attend. Since then, North Korea and the United States have been exchanging angry rhetoric. [/]

So, which is it ???? Condie says we can, the military says we can't, or atleast MAY NOT BE ABLE to..... Can't this adminstration get anything right?

May 4, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has issued a report to Congress that said the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could hamstring the U.S. ability to fight other wars

No kidding. Are our armed forces to have unlimited resources to be able to fight an unlimited number of wars all at the same time?

May 4, 2005

Maybe our neo-conservative Bushies should forget about wars stimulating our economy from now on. I don't think that will fly anymore. The cost of oil will for sure keep the proverbial economic millstone around the necks of us all. I heard that Bush even admitted that he is worried about the cost of oil.... A little late if you ask me.

May 4, 2005

Quote:

No kidding. Are our armed forces to have unlimited resources to be able to fight an unlimited number of wars all at the same time?

But we aren't fighting a war in either country.

At least, not according to GWB - we are being welcomed in the streets with flowers and kisses. And Iraqi oil is paying for it all. And they are an exemplary democracy because of the peaceful transition from a brutal dictator to the American Way of Life.

/Bevin

May 4, 2005

Pretty sick humor, Brother Bevin. Our heros are over there so we can go to the shopping malls and baseball games and tuck in our children in peace. Even those that come out alive go through hell. War is no joking matter. God bless our troops in harm's way.

May 4, 2005

Quote:

[:"blue"] Pretty sick humor, Brother Bevin. Our heros are over there so we can go to the shopping malls and baseball games and tuck in our children in peace. Even those that come out alive go through hell. War is no joking matter. God bless our troops in harm's way.

[/]

Shane what planet have you been on. The country of Afghanistan is not a threat to us. Dubya and the UN have found no WMD in Iraq. We can't take the World Trade Center bombing and connet the dots to either country. Can we connect the dots to a group of Muslims who are independent of those countries???The answer is yes, but to try to say that we are safe because we have rolled over 2 third world countries is a joke. We know that Korea is a threat. It is documented, and we are doing what besides making threats. I guess Korea could actually fight back so we don't like the odds. We have opted to use our military resources in 2 settings in the middle east which are not winable. Of course that is going to stretch our resources to the max.

What are we going to do now that we have a situation with a real madman????Verbally threaten him, and hope that he gets scared and stops. . . maybe we'll take some of the troops that just got back and send them over to South Korea to march in and attack. How can we solve this Shane? What is the answer???

We have not solved the problem. We are not safer, we are just lulled into the thought that the world is a safer place. The real attackers are plotting and looking for weaknesses all the time. You and I know that in a free country that the potential is very high that the terrorists can and will strike again.

K

May 4, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane what planet have you been on. The country of Afghanistan is not a threat to us. Dubya and the UN have found no WMD in Iraq.

Now here is a good example of an American that is not informed. And she thinks she is!!! Imagine how many there are that know they are not.

Afghanistan is not a threat to us??? Terrorists based in that country only blew up the WTC and Pentegon and are still killing our soldiers!!! No threat? What planet do you live on? You must read the NY Times or Boston Globe.

No WMDs in Iraq? Do you need to ask Paul Harvey for the rest of the story? You do know that Saddam had the UN on his payroll? I mean, you have heard of the oil-for-food scandel? You do know the oil-for-food scandel was all about getting sanctions lifted so Saddam could resume his WMD program. So if we hadn't invaded we would have never learned about the oil=for-food scandal, sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam would have resumed his WMD programs. The invation accomplished what it was intended to. It prevented Saddam from giving WMDs to terrorists and he would have done it if sanctions had been lifted.

As I said, a fine example of an uniformed American. Do you think she knew about President Putin's warning to President Bush?

May 5, 2005

Quote:

[:"blue"]Now here is a good example of an American that is not informed. And she thinks she is!!! Imagine how many there are that know they are not. [/]

I guess you are the only person in the US who has a direct line to Dubya. All the intelligence coming out of the Oval office must be passing right through to you so only you have the correct information. Oh yeah Flush Rush Limbaugh probably has the right information too because only conservatives know the correct information. Oh I forget you are moderate. Hard to really tell most of the time.

Quote:

[:"blue"]Afghanistan is not a threat to us??? Terrorists based in that country only blew up the WTC and Pentegon . . .] [/]

You said the very words Shane Terrorsts based in the country blew up the WTC. The terrorists are still running amuck,today we caught # 3 in Dubya's deck (whew!), but we still are fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today they blew up 50 of Iraq's policemen. How in the world do we deal with people who are willing to die because they hate us so much. It is not the country of Afghanistan that is the problem, it is the terrorists. Obviously we do not know how to whip them or we would.

Quote:

[:"blue"] You must read the NY Times or Boston Globe. [/]

I don't read them; but now that you mentioned it, I'll try to include it in my daily readings. Thanks for the advice.

Quote:

[:"blue"]The invation accomplished what it was intended to. It prevented Saddam from giving WMDs to terrorists and he would have done it if sanctions had been lifted.] [/]

The issue keeps changing. First Sadaam has WMD, and then it was to keep him from giving terrorists WMD that he MIGHT make. What is the story Shane???Let's cloud the issue with a lot of unimportant information like oil for food. . .UN on the payola. . . Same old story different chapter.

If you have any more information direct from the White House, please post it so all of us uninformed Americans can be as informed as you and all the right wingers.

K

May 6, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The issue keeps changing. First Sadaam has WMD, and then it was to keep him from giving terrorists WMD that he MIGHT make. What is the story Shane???

So you admit that you are not informed. Don't feel bad.

We went into Iraq for various reasons but principally because we believed he had WMDs. Everyone believed it. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and the mainstream media believed it. Our Army went in wearing chemical suits in the desart which are hot and uncomfortable in the Midwest. Everyone belived Saddam had WMDs. President Putin had warned President Bush that Saddam was going to use his WMDS and terrorists to attack us.

Once we got into Iraq we discovered there were no WMDs. We also discovered that Saddam had been putting out false "leaks" to cause the world to believe he had WMDs while publicly claiming he didn't. We learned that up until shortly before the invation, Saddam's own intelligence agency believed he had WMDs. We learned about the oil-for-food scandel and his intention to resume WMD programs. We also learned more about his connection to terrorist groups.

It isn't that complicated but the mainstream media is into sensationalism. They are after ratings and report what gets ratings. If you want to be completely informed you need various sources of news information. The media isn't looking out for you. Don't trust them to give you the complete truth about any given story.

May 6, 2005

Quote:

Everyone believed it. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and the mainstream media believed it.

That's right. They believed it BECAUSE GEORGE W BUSH LIED.

GWB said he KNEW WHERE THE WEAPONS WERE - it was a lie.

GWB said he was SURE - it was a lie.

The UN Weapons Inspectors, on the other hand, were quite clear. They stated that they had not found these weapons, and told GWB that - if he knew where they were - he should tell them.

GWB and the neo-cons wanted to go to war. They lied to take the country into the war.

/Bevin

May 6, 2005

Sounds like another uniformed American.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

They believed it BECAUSE GEORGE W BUSH LIED.

The problem with your lie (Is it ok for me to call you a liar like you call President Bush?) is that Clinton and Gore believed this while Bush was governor of Texas. Do you know about something we don't? Maybe Bush was calling Clinton and Gore from Texas and telling them about WMDs in Iraq. I have never heard that story. Sounds like a fish-tale. Or should I say a Bevin-tale? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

GWB said he KNEW WHERE THE WEAPONS WERE

You must not have read the news that the CIA told him where they were and he believed them. Or are you just misleading us again about what you know and don't know?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

GWB said he was SURE

The director of the CIA said it was a slam dunk. How dare Bush believe the CIA!!! He should call Bevin to get his facts straight.

May 6, 2005

Quote:

[:"blue"]We went into Iraq for various reasons but principally because we believed he had WMDs. Everyone believed it. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and the mainstream media believed it. [/]

Everyone believed it because our President told us that the intelligence community had proof that there were WMD. Everyone supported the President based on faulty intelligence. Shane heads should have rolled over that in the intelligence community. They made the President look bad.

As a country we made a call to go to war based on bad intelligence. It is sad that now we have to make up reasons why it is ok that we rolled over a small country.

K

May 6, 2005

Quote:

The problem with your lie (Is it ok for me to call you a liar like you call President Bush?) is that Clinton and Gore believed this while Bush was governor of Texas. Do you know about something we don't? Maybe Bush was calling Clinton and Gore from Texas and telling them about WMDs in Iraq. I have never heard that story. Sounds like a fish-tale. Or should I say a Bevin-tale?

I don''t u nderstand this, Shane....

Let's say that you are correct. Bush was given misinformation by the intelligence agencies. They gave him thier best estimate and it was the Sadaam had the WMDs.

Why did Bush say previous to the invasion that he KNEW where those WMD were at? In reality, he doesn't know. He thinks he knows, but he doesn't. And he is not listening to the WMD imspectors because ....? They are telling him that they cant find WMDs. He ain't listening. Putin didn't listen....And the CIA said that Sadaam had both WMD and did NOT have WMDs.

Granted, we may have had indications [not evidence] that Sadaam would have like to attack the US. But other regimens also have indicated that they would have like to attack the US, but havent. That is still no reason for us to go in and disrupt a sovergn state. It is against the world legal system.

You may not understand this Shane, but the Goverment of the US funnels all vital information the president needs to him. Good, bad and contradictory, it all goes to him and his administration to assess. Sure, there are many 'filters", ie the department head of the CIA, and other spooks, but also the news media, who are also putting out thier best guess. You have admited that the goveremnt listens to the newspapers on occasion. In this case, The result was that the President drew up an assessment that did not meet the facts, He lied to himself or he lied to us...Either way, Shane, that is NOT the man to have as head of the US goverement.

May 6, 2005

There are TWO ways to lie. One is to just invent things. This is childish and amateur.

GWB uses the politician's method - select the input you want to hear, ignore what you don't want to hear, punish people that tell you what you don't want to hear, and then claim that you were only following advice.

GWB is a professional liar, and has been all his political career.

Don't let the Republican's spin you like a top.

BUSH KNEW THE EVIDENCE WAS FLIMSY.

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

Quote:

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14030-2004Jun3.html

Quote:

"George, how confident are you?" the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," Tenet said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042800403.html

Quote:

Former CIA Director George Tenet said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had "slam dunk" evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"Those were the two dumbest words I ever said," Tenet told about 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday.

...

[:"red"]Unsure that Americans would find a CIA listing of evidence compelling, Bush turned to Tenet. [/] "It's a slam-dunk case," Tenet said.

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

Quote:

Bush also made his decision to go to war

[:"red"]without consulting Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or Secretary of State Colin Powell[/], Woodward's book says.

Powell was not even told until after the Saudi ambassador was allowed to review top-secret war plans in an effort to enlist his country's support for the invasion, according to Woodward, who has written or co-written several best-selling books on Washington politics, including "All the President's Men" with Carl Bernstein.

The book also reports that [:"red"]in the summer of 2002, $700 million was diverted from a congressional appropriation for the war in Afghanistan to develop a war plan for Iraq.[/]

Woodward suggests the diversion may have been illegal, and that Congress was deliberately kept in the dark about what had been done.

/Bevin

May 6, 2005

First, you folks are all forgetting that Clinton, Gore and company all believed that Saddam had WMDs before Bush was ever elected President. So they couldn't have believed that because of Bush.

Second, the weapons inspectors didn't claim Saddam didn't have WMDs. In fact, shortly before the invation they found an old, banned missle from the first Gulf War. The inspectors actually said that Saddam was acting like he had something to hide. However, that said, the inspectors did want more time. And remember the inspectors were lead by Hans Blix who believed that global warming presented a bigger threat to the world than Saddam did!

Thirdly, it wasn't just the CIA but several other nation's intelligence communities too. Saddam's government had officiers that had been in several meetings where Al Queda officers were too. While there was no direct connections, there were several shady circumstances to arouse suspicion. Couple that with President Putin's warning and it would have been irresponsible for Bush not to go to war.

Fourthly, even though Saddam didn't have WMDs, he did have the capacity to make them. He had the UN on his payroll so he was going to get sanctions lifted and resume his WMD programs.

Fifth, Saddam had attacked the US before and there was evidence that he had supported terrorist groups which had attacked the US.

May 7, 2005

Shane - you are forgetting that IT WAS WELL KNOWN that Saddam had them years earlier.

That was not the question - and it has nothing to do with Goerge Bush's lie.

George W Bush told the American public he was certain Saddam had WMD, and he knew where they were. He lied. He knew the evidence Tennent had, and he knew it was not enough. That is why, as my references show, he asked Tennent the question.

Tennet did NOT provide GWB with any more evidence - and GWB KNEW that Tennent had no more evidence.

Despite knowing how flimsy the evidence was, GWB lied to the American public and said he was certain that Saddam had current, existing, major stocks of WMD.

A couple of obsolete pieces of junk left over from the millions of rounds from 10 years earlier does not count. Even the Bush administration, with their long record of lying and exageration, does not think it counts. Why do you?

/Bevin

May 7, 2005

Brother Bevin, you are guilty of what you accuse President Bush of. You accuse him of believing what he wanted to believe - which is what you do. You accuse him of ignoring the evidence that did not support what he wanted to believe - which is what you do. You accuse him of flimsy sources - which is what you have.

Come on now. CNN & The Washington Post? Why not include the New York Times, Boston Globe and 60 Minutes while you are at it? You are building a case against President Bush in exactly the same way you accuse him of building a case against Saddam Hussien. Where I come from we have a word for folks like you.

May 9, 2005

Shane, I don't have all the information...but what you have put out is bogus, man...totally bogus... Even my "intellectual mind" can take this apart, piece by peice....

I have never seen a person stoop so low, to avoid saying that maybe, just maybe, he might need to review some articles....

[shaking head in disbelief]

May 9, 2005

Quote:

CNN & The Washington Post? Why not include the New York Times, Boston Globe and 60 Minutes

Neil, you will notice that Shane has reached the point where he is denying FACTS presented that contradict his world-view. He is no longer just denying logic, he actually can't stand to hear facts any more.

This makes him a true believer in GWB Republicanism. Decide what you want to be true. Obviously it is true. Obviously logic that contradicts it is bad. Obviously facts that contradict it are wrong. Obviously organizations that present such facts and logic are out to destroy America.

Repeatedly following this behaviour is exactly why GWB and his administration is a horrible administration. They have done it for education, the environment, the job market, the voting process, big business, SS, Israel, Iran, Iraq...

Strange though, their mistakes always line the pockets of GWB and his cronies - while they toss Shane and his ilk 'we are christian's, hear us roar' bones to distract them.

Let the looting continue...

/Bevin

May 10, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane has reached the point where he is denying FACTS presented that contradict his world-view

I am not the one that denies facts that contradict my world-view. Quite the contrary. I am the one that gets my news from various sources and does not rule out any. Brother Bevin and Neil get their news from one side of the political spectrum and take it as gospel. They let the left spin them. I am not a top. I don't spin.

They want to believe Bush lied so they look for news sources to support that. They ignore the fact that the 9/11 Commission came to a seperate conclusion. They want to belive the invasion of Iraq was a mistake so they look for news soources that support that. They ignore the finding of the 9/11 commission that if we hadn't invaded Saddam would have gotten sactions lifted and resumed his WMD programs. They are the ones that ignore the facts to support a world-view. They listen only to what they want to hear. Kind of ironic that it is the same thing they accuse Bush of doing.

May 10, 2005

Quote:

Neil, you will notice that Shane has reached the point where he is denying FACTS presented that contradict his world-view. He is no longer just denying logic, he actually can't stand to hear facts any more.

Oh of course.... What this shows to me is that it doesn't matter what facts are presented, he will continue to believe his belief. This attitude is tantamount to denying any sort of help that the Holy Spirit may attempt to get across to Shane. This attitude reminds me of the wicked in the last days, who are given clear facts and they continue to deny them...It is amazing to me that any SDA can be so blind...

Quote:

This makes him a true believer in GWB Republicanism. Decide what you want to be true. Obviously it is true. Obviously logic that contradicts it is bad. Obviously facts that contradict it are wrong. Obviously organizations that present such facts and logic are out to destroy America.

What is the difference between this type of logic/philsophy and that of the attitude of the man who rejects Jesus?

Quote:

Repeatedly following this behaviour is exactly why GWB and his administration is a horrible administration. They have done it for education, the environment, the job market, the voting process, big business, SS, Israel, Iran, Iraq...

Quality has gone out of vogue. Integrity is passe...Amazing, truely amazing that the goal of the Republicans are to line thier own pockets and make themselves look pious at the same time...

Quote:

Strange though, their mistakes always line the pockets of GWB and his cronies - while they toss Shane and his ilk 'we are christian's, hear us roar' bones to distract them.

Let the looting continue...

[:"green"] 11"The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more— 12cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men.

14"They will say, 'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' 15The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn 16and cry out:

" 'Woe! Woe, O great city,

dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet,

and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!

17In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!' [/]

Sign In

Iraq, Afghan wars reportedly strain U.S. fighting ability

Recommended Posts

Neil D

Neil D

Dr. Shane

wicklunds

bevin

Dr. Shane

K

Dr. Shane

K

Dr. Shane

bevin

Dr. Shane

K

Neil D

bevin

Dr. Shane

bevin

Dr. Shane

Neil D

bevin

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity