Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Regional Summary




Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance


Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs
Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community


Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Joe Bobs is back!
Topic Started: Aug 21 2009, 04:48 AM (1,627 Views)
Lower Bowmania
Member Avatar
Simply ravishing...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
1. Backward is subjective. Cultural and social differences create inherently different class, governmental and economic structures.

2. Yes, they were a thriving, first-rate, world class industrial powerhouse. For about 10 minutes.

3. Comparatively wealthy? If you mean that the 8 indescribably rich oligarchs were wealthy compared to the 99.99% of the Russian population that hadn't a pot to piss in, then I'll concede the point.*

4. Of course work was at an all time high. If you weren't working toward a more productive state, you were exiled or killed.

5. As to your comments regarding the Chechens and Belarus, that was really JB's arguement more than mine, so I'll let him defend himself. For my part, I agree with you, Dup...it would appear that Russian is setting itself quite nicely for the near future.



*Edit: Clearly, these stats are made up for sensationalist purposes.
Edited by Lower Bowmania, Sep 28 2009, 03:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Uropa
Member Avatar
Render unto Caesar
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dupitable
Sep 28 2009, 03:23 AM
I have never read through such an alawrming set of terrible unresearched documentary level history regurgitated word for word as fact.

.
I think the wanky, strategic studies term I used was 'strategic depth'. Russia has lots of it, lots of academics have written about it, and frankly its a more compelling argument than any you've managed to muster.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Ruescher Empire
Member Avatar
Buh
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Uropa
Sep 28 2009, 04:50 PM
Dupitable
Sep 28 2009, 03:23 AM
I have never read through such an alawrming set of terrible unresearched documentary level history regurgitated word for word as fact.

.
I think the wanky, strategic studies term I used was 'strategic depth'. Russia has lots of it, lots of academics have written about it, and frankly its a more compelling argument than any you've managed to muster.
Zing
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
1: They were backwards, like half the African nations now.

2: No, for fifty years

3: I believe the average wage of the Soviet Union was higher then, say, Portugal or Spain, and was just behind Britain for much of the latter 20th century (until demise). I would say that they were, not wealthy, but certainly not uncomforable.

4: Not really, simply the loss of 30 million men and the growth of an industrial and military economy meant that there were more then enough jobs for workers when they returned, that and considering the USSr was then one of the two remaining nations who hadn't had the shit blown out of it's heavy industry (or at least had rebuilt it by '45) meant that while France and Germany and Italy were pciking themselves up, the USSR had plenty of markets to sell to once the post war slump had ended. Britain, at this point was more of a service economy.

5: As long as Russia has oil, it will continue to be able to be, not only a unified state, but a potentially expansionist one. Terrorism is just another form of bullying, and the Russians do not take well to bullying.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dupitable
Sep 28 2009, 02:23 PM
I sincearly doubt that, all aspects of modern Russian history point to the exact opposit of that happening. The Chechen Wars have been won, the insurgants have now largely been pushed into the border mountains and are carrying out an unpopular guerilla war, mostly run and fought by Arabs, not the local people. Russia is slowly but surely solidifying the positions of it's surrounding puppet states like Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdniestr and has threatened the Ukraine with conflict if it is not allowed continued access to the Crimea. I see no sign of Russia collapsing further and suspect any claims that it will do so are fancifull at best.

Indeed just two months ago, Belarus began sending it's officer Cadet for training in Russia as a precurser to the unification of their militaries which Belarus wishes to be a precurser to the complete unification of Russia and Belarus.

But it was not just on the world stage Stalin was successfull, he transformed Russia from a poor and backwards agricultural state to a first rate Industrial nation, that was to become, comparatively rich. While some scientists were sent to Gulags, other areas of science flourished and the education system became free and widespread like nothing Russia had seen before, including access to education for women, something that had been suggested at by earlier rulers, but only fully implemented by Stalin. Literacy rates increased astronomically.

We have to remember, Stalin was responsible for a welfare state including free education and healthcare ten years before Atlee came to power. At his death employment was at an all time high.

We have to remember, The USSR was an incredibly backwards and fractured state prior to Stalin, and wether we like it or not he unified it to a state where people would not even consider deunification for fourty years. The only thing he really failed to do was institute mass population transfer whcih would have destroyed the ethnic nationalism within the Soviet Union and would most likely have stopped any eventual fracturing of the state, even if the communist government were to fall.

Friedman wrote his book in 2008 and he predicts exactly what you described.

I'm not saying I'm certain Russia will fragment. Obviously that would be ridiculous. I'm saying I could very well see it happening. Russia's economy is moving backwards, as it is now reliant upon primary resource extraction, which is the basis of a third world economy. As the West weens itself off hydrocarbons (and also note the new gas pipelines from Africa and Asia, the latter via Turkey) Russia will lose its only power. When the US has finished its war in the Muslim world (which, despite predictions of a 40 year struggle, I sincerely doubt will last more than another five years, admittedly some troops may remain to protect infrastructure) it's attention will be back on Russia because the US does not like it when Russia takes power in the region, as you rightly point out it is trying to do in Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus. It is when Russia tries to take control of the Baltic states that the US/NATO will take interest. Holding Ukraine and Georgia is strategically of little worth because the Carpathian and Caucasus mountain ranges respectively divide them from any NATO allies. However, the Baltics lead to Poland and the European Plain, historically the route of invasion into Russia. Russia is always desperate to secure this area, and Germany and Poland are desperate to make sure they don't. Plus, there are NATO bases in Estonia less than 100 miles from St. Petersberg, a situation the Russians do not like one bit. The point is, all this means we're looking at another Russia-US conflict (probably more cold than the last cold war), and the Russians cannot possibly beat the US. and this time, China is a US ally and the US have hundreds of military bases in Central Asia. What's more, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia so despise the Russians they will grant the US as many missile sites and air bases as they want. Russia are surrounded. The US will never let them regain their former glory because the number one US objective is to stop a major power taking control of Eurasia. The only way for Russia is down.

One more point, holding Transnistria/Transdniestr (am I right in thinking both are acceptable?) and Abkhazia means sweet FA. You could take over Transnistria with 10 blind men and a pellet gun. Admittedly Ossetia is more important but only because it puts pressure on Georgia to abandon the US.

That's the future dealt with. As for the past, you can say what you want about Stalin, but the average Russian would have to queue three hours from 5am to have a chance at getting a loaf of bread for the week. I'll concede the point that he raised education levels, that was one good thing. But to be the second most important superpower in the world and still have the kind of economic problems the Soviet Union had shows a serious mismanagement of funds.

Old Z, free healthcare is great. The vast majority of British pensioners could not afford medical treatment privately. Would you prefer them just to die off? Besides, the vast majority of the NHS is funded by smokers. We're natural benefactors (to use Sir Humphrey's phrase), selflessly laying down our lives for the benefit of others. Or would you prefer to lower taxes on cigarettes and close the NHS thereby increasing the number of smokers and increasing the number of people being treated for smoking related diseases, thereby increasing the number of people in private hospitals and making those hospitals just as crowded and unpleasant as state funded ones? Presuming that you have a private medical health service, you should be happy that it keeps your hospital nice and clean and free of the sprawling, germ-ridden masses.


Anyone else want some? :Laugh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lower Bowmania
Member Avatar
Simply ravishing...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
JB, you broke my eyes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
[quoteI think the wanky, strategic studies term I used was 'strategic depth'. Russia has lots of it, lots of academics have written about it, and frankly its a more compelling argument than any you've managed to muster.[/quote]

*Sigh*

Almost no nation has ever survived, no matter how big, with an army occupying it's capital. Strategic depth The Soviet union did have, but it was a contributive factor. the axis forces did not have to roll all the way to Vladivostok, they had to hit Moscow, and they made it within 14 miles of this. Had the Axis taken Moscow, the USSR would have fallen.

Indeed as mantioned, the weather was also a contributive factor to the German defeat, but again, not a major one.

These factors are both elements which had to be considered as part of the German general's Combat Estimate during the planning stages of BNarbarossa, and indeed they had been.

the problems lie in three areas.

1: The German's Tactics.

2: The German's Allies

3: The German Leadership

Point one and two are both intermixed, so I will illustrate where nessecery.

German tactics, even by Barbarossa in '41, still relied upon lightning strikes, these had wroked unbelievably well against France, Denmark, the Low countries and Norway. Why? Because the Germans had acheived swift victory, the nation's had not been able to mobilise properly, or, in the case of Denmark, at all. Now, from this we get a German favour of lightning strike 'blitzkreig' attacks.

The success of the Blitzkreig attacks relied on the proper implementation of tactics, and in addition, a level of autonomous leadership most obviously displayed by Generals such as Rommel, but also Generals such as Model (a vastly underated general in my opinion) and, Rundstedt, also a capable but oft forgotten offensive general.

In addition, Blitzkreig thrived on having the correct resources at hand and was like a well oiled machine, it needed it needed all the cogs to work.

But now we will skip back to 1940, where the Italian army is crossing the Albanian border with Greece. In five months 40% of the Italian force will be dead, MIA or wounded compared to only 15% of the Greek forces. This loss is a catastrophe for the Axis, not only has it severely embarrassed the Axis army, but it has also opened a second front in the war and Britain is no longer fighting alone.

Fast forwards one month after Italian forces cross the Albanian border, and Italian forces, whiule inconclusively fighting in Greece, invade egypt. This is another catastrophic move by the Italians, not only due to the Invasion being a non entity in itself, but in that it provokes a devastating British counter attack. Two months later, the British have pushed a thousand kilometers into Italian Libya (incidentaly 84% of the distance between German Poland and Moscow across equally unfavourable terain).

What do these two Italian moves do to the german's. Well, if we return to the original Combat Estimate for Barbarossa, the Russian Winter and Strategic Depth have both been taken into account by German High Command, they have set a date in 1941 that the offensive must begin on to acheive their objectives.

Now, the German's are compelled to help their Italian allies in Greece and Italy. The Invasion of Greece has brought Yugoslavia into the war, this is dangerous for the Germans because Yugoslavia can tie up the advanced and experianced Romanian army which is a crucial factor in their combat estimate for Barbarossa.(Remembering that tactically, the 'blitzkreig' tactics of the Germans were modernised versions of the hugely successfull Romanian tactics of the 1919 war. Not only this but Romania was an important source of oil. So the Italian blunders forced Germany to postpose Barbarossa and assist the Italians in the desert campaigns and in the Yugoslav and Second Greek Invasion.

This was disastarous for the Herr, not only because it had delayed Barbarossa. But simply, for one battle which lost Germany the war. Crete. The Greek campaign for the Germans was a phyrric victory of the highest order, because it lost them Barbarossa. This was for two reasons, most obiously, the invasion of the USSr was delayed, but secondly, because of the massive paratrooper casualties Hitler decreed that they never be used again in an air offense role.

Now, we once again have to bear in mind the Desert campaign, the DAK has now been sent to Africa and is being forced to fight the British in a campaign the Rommel knows they will win. The Italians while acceptable defensive fighters, are not brilliant in attack (and here we begin another factor of number 2). During the desert campaign, Rommel blames everything that goes wrong on his Italian allies calling them incompetant, this begins to francture Italian support for the Axis alliance both at home and on the battle field. Indeed one major outrage is where Rommel tells high command he has lost a battle because the Italians were incompetent cowards (I believe 2nd Alemein) despite the fact that the DAK was in full retreat while the two Italian Corps (10th and 20th IIRC) stayed and fought to the last man). this begins to create a rift.

Okay now we fast forwards to Barbarossa and we see why two otherwise insignificant problems have been made into huge ones. With the use of paratroopers (which the German's typically used for attacks on capital cities, Ref: Paris) removed, a small but important cog has been taken out of the German war machine. Witht he attack delayed by two months, it is now very unlikely the German army will make it to Moscow before winter. It is especially unlikely as the

But the attack is not lost yet. However there are yet more factors to consider, germany has now lost a thousand tanks and nearly seven hundred aircraft. More are still deployed in the desert as is one of their most talented and best loved Generals along with the most experianced German tank commanders and Germany's most experianced troops.

Not only this but German supply lines are allready starting to strain with supplying troops in Africa and Greece. Some Generals advise that Barbarossa be postponed until 1942. They are ignored.

So now we have what was formerly an excellent military plan that took into account the winter and the distance (though the strategic depth of Russia, as I said, should not be over estimated, the German's made it 99.9% of the way there and certainly equal distances were acheived in the desert war).

Not only this, but when the campaign gets underway, the continuous interferance of Hitler in the command of the army (he refuses to let his troops dig in and prepare for a russian counter attack, which I believe they could have held off and forces the German army to continue a force on force offensive which makes the excellent German technology infinately less effective (for example the German Tank Destroyers had a kill ratio of 10:1 on Russian tanks in defence but more or less the exact opposite in defence). Germans were naturaly exceptionally good defensive fighters and at full stregnth and in occupation of several key Russian cities could have blunted a russian armoured counter attack when the winter came. The fact that they were not allowed to dig defences meant that when the Russians eventually did counter attack, they were fucked and their defensive capabilities were wasted.

Finally, the Germans were slightly screwed over by the Japanese who decided to invade China rather then Russia. Had the Japs gone into Russia, the war would have more or less ended there and then.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
What's more, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia so despise the Russians they will grant the US as many missile sites and air bases as they want.


I wonder, have you ever lived in the Czech Rep and hung around with Czechs? Or been to Transdniestr. Because your statements are nonsense, the majority of Czech's (or certainly Pragians) do not want the missile defence system. All the Romanians want is to be left alone, they have no desire to antagonise the Russians, if they did they would have rolled over Transdniestr years ago they just want to defend themselves (and possibly annex moldova) and I doubt would give the US missile sites as this would completely counter this.
Transdniestr could not simply be rolled over, it has a fairly advanced military, albeit small, but the entire country is built around defending itself. Oh, and most natably, there are about 3000 Russian Soldiers there. Oh, and most of the Soviet Western Army's reserve weapons cache.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thankyou LB.

Dup:

Excellent WWII history. Very nice.

I accept I included the Czechs in that list perhaps a little hastily. It is certainly true of Hungary, Romania and Poland though. My girlfriend is Romanian, I know her family and have been to Romania. They would easily accept closer ties with the US, including military bases, in order to repel the Russians. They hate anything that reminds them of Communism and they hate the Russians. Since WWI the Russian army had a presence in Romania which all remember with horror, as they were left uncontrolled. I guarantee Russia could not advance in the Balkans.

I expect, with US support, Romania would absorb Moldova, perhaps following the pretext of preventing human rights abuses. Romanians consider Moldovans to be Romanians. If Russia were to move aggressively against Moldova I am certain Romania would want NATO to step in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I am more then aware of Romanian politics, however, I suspect you have somewhat missed my point.

The Romanian will gladly accept anything to stop the Russians coming back. But at the same time, they will not antagonise the Russians on purpouse by accepting missile bases.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I was saying that, if the Russians enter into the same deal with Ukraine they have with Belorus (which they will), and from here they try to occupy Moldova with the same tactics, Romania will consider this aggressive enough to warrant upping NATO defences in Moldavia (in Romania). Whilst NATO probably wouldn't consider Moldova strategically important enough to warrant aggressive moves with Russia, it would be another in a series of events in which pressure is built between NATO and Russia (the first being the South Ossetian conflict last year). The tipping point would be Russia's attempt to reclaim the Baltic states (again, same deal as Belorus and Ukraine), which would be a threat to Poland and therefore to Europe and would move back NATO's front line with Russia by 1000 miles. When the pressure builds in the Baltics, the second cold war will begin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Baltic States are all in NATO, Russia won't dare try to reclaim them. The Ukraine won't enter the reunification project like Belarus did, as the Ukraine like the Russians even less then I do and will resist fiercely. They probably won't defeat the Russians (though it is possible), but they will give them a bloody nose.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I disagree. There are pro-Russian elements within Ukraine, which Russia will exploit in the same way it did in 2004 and the Orange Revolution, but they will be more successful. There will be elements in Ukraine which feel the need to bow to Russia as they are dependent on them. Whilst there is a strong anti-Russian nationalist feeling, it'll weaken considerably when Russia turns the gas and oil off - Ukraine won't benefit from the new African pipelines like the rest of Europe.

And the Russians will try to secure the Baltics, regardless of whether or not they are NATO members. Russia have always had the same policy, secure the only real natural threat to Russia - the Great European Plain. In pursuing this policy, they have to secure the Baltics and Poland, putting as much distance as possible between Europeans and Moscow. This is always Russia's agenda.

I'm not suggesting for a moment Russia will invade them in the old fashioned way. It will be a series of treaties and increasing pressure, but the result will be the same. NATO troops out and Russian troops in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Northern Chittowa
Member Avatar
The Grand Old Duke
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Im starting to like this topic :P

Dup, i just want to say very good post about two or three up, i agree with pretty much all you have said. A couple of points though. The Italian army was, as you rightly pointed out, shockingly bad and was more a hindrance to the Germans than a help and as a result the Germans did have to help them more by diverting forces away from where they are needed.

Second point about the Japanese and Russia, i dont believe they would have ever invaded Russia, as they were more concerned with Americas presence in the pacific than fighting the Russians, even if it would have perhaps helped out Germany. Indeed, with their own plans of creating an empire in the east, their main enemy in doing that would have been the Americans...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
On your Italian point, I have to agree and disagree, the Italian leadership were a great liability to the Germans, but the Italian army were actually remarkably good, compared to modern popular opinion. (bar Greece and Op Compas) The Italian army when commanded by German commanders actually, pound for pound fought as well in defence as the Germans did despite worse equipment.#

((sorry, I do actually have a lot of sympathy for the Italian army. You probably noticed I have disapeared for about a year. This is because I was studying military history, so I am quite up on this, and I believe a great injustice has been done to the Italian army in the Western Desert Campaign and I think Rommel has unfairly and perminantly tarnished their reputation. I am currently writing a book on the issue))

Regarding the second point actually the Japanese did draw up plans for an attack on the USSR as they viewed the Chinese as backwards and the Soviets as the main threat, however, with the initial successes of Barbarossa, they decided that the Germans would win easily and not need their support, so they diverted their military stregnth into China rather then Russia. This again, is one of those flippant decisions that could have changed the outcome of the war.
Edited by Dupitable, Sep 29 2009, 01:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You'll have to let us know the title of your book when its published, I'd love to read it!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old Zertaxia
Member Avatar
The Ex-Speaker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Joe Bobs
Sep 28 2009, 05:03 PM
Old Z, free healthcare is great. The vast majority of British pensioners could not afford medical treatment privately. Would you prefer them just to die off? Besides, the vast majority of the NHS is funded by smokers. We're natural benefactors (to use Sir Humphrey's phrase), selflessly laying down our lives for the benefit of others. Or would you prefer to lower taxes on cigarettes and close the NHS thereby increasing the number of smokers and increasing the number of people being treated for smoking related diseases, thereby increasing the number of people in private hospitals and making those hospitals just as crowded and unpleasant as state funded ones? Presuming that you have a private medical health service, you should be happy that it keeps your hospital nice and clean and free of the sprawling, germ-ridden masses.
In short, yes. If they did not adequately save for their life after work, then why in the world should I bail them out? Old people are very cuddly and cozy, but if you are going to bring them into the hard world of money and who deserves what, I'm going to allow them everything they earned, and not a penny more. Even if that means they go to the poor house.

I really don't give a rats-ass about your National Health Service, seeing as I'm an American, and I pray to God that I will not live to see socialized health care in the United States. It is not the responsibility of the government to make sure you get health care. It is YOURS. If you fail, then pay the consequences.

Again, in sum: If you fail at the game of life, you die. The government does not (or should not) provide you with an extra +1 up...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well you should thank your lucky stars you were born wealthy, well educated and healthy then. Lets hope you never have kids that require round the clock medical care or anything.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old Zertaxia
Member Avatar
The Ex-Speaker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, I didn't say anything against health insurance, bought in free market conditions....which is exactly for the situation you've given....

And I'm not wealthy. I have parents who work, get paid, and then bought my good health. My education was also a gift from my parents, who have gone heavily into debt on my behalf. There is no luck in hard work.


AND on a side note, having kids is a personal choice, one that should be decided after much personal thought. If you choose to have children, then you also accept the burdens associated with them, and not shove those burdens off onto a government that has no business picking up your slack...
Edited by Old Zertaxia, Sep 29 2009, 02:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blue Blessed Dolphins
Member Avatar
Professor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
JB
 
Or would you prefer to lower taxes on cigarettes


Yes I would, I'm tired of paying 6$ for a pack of Marlboro reds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Introductions · Next Topic »
Add Reply