babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » What is the Liberal position on Afghanistan?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What is the Liberal position on Afghanistan?
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 May 2006 09:45 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Answer:

There is none.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sanityatlast
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12414

posted 18 May 2006 10:03 AM      Profile for Sanityatlast        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Answer:

There is none.


No Liberal leader could hold the caucus together. MPs' first responsibility is to their constituents and the Afghan issue will trump party lines. Some Liberal MPs would cross the floor or leave the caucus before they would compromise on this issue. They are not all scoundrels.


From: Alberta | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238

posted 18 May 2006 10:11 AM      Profile for Polunatic2   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some Liberal MPs would cross the floor or leave the caucus before they would compromise on this issue.
I have my doubts about that.

Having said that, clearly, the libs are divided. It would be a mistake to just label that as a "ploy" which proves that the libs and cons are exactly the same and that the libs as a whole are responsible for the outcome of the vote.

The NDP (and the peace movement) can capitalize on these divisions by acknowledging them, not by trying to discredit those Libs who voted against the extension. To try and do so will cost them with liberal-leaning voters who are opposed to the "mission" because those voters will see that their MP voted the right way. They'll never be able to persuade those voters that the libs voted the right way for the wrong reason.

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 18 May 2006 10:14 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't call it a "ploy," but I somehow have the feeling that there were at least a handful of Liberals who voted no, who would have voted yes had there votes been needed.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238

posted 18 May 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for Polunatic2   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whether or not that's true Josh, the NDP will lose credibility trying to explain that - particularly without any solid proof.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 May 2006 10:27 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
God forbid that the NDP might do anything to make the Liberals look bad - that would go against Marquess of Queensberry rules!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238

posted 18 May 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for Polunatic2   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It goes against the rules of commons sense. What can possibly be gained by demonizing people who vote the right way?

Let's say the NDP gets their wish and the libs elect the most right-wing candidate as their leader. Wouldn't the NDP want lib voters who are unhappy with the new leader to move to the NDP? Insulting those voters as being stupid is a recipe for failure.

I have no problem if the NDP goes on the attack against those liberals who voted for the extension because they can justify the attack.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 May 2006 11:09 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that there is no point in the NDP launching personal attacks on MPs who voted NO on the motion. But I think that there is nothing wrong with the NDP attacking the Liberal Party as a whole for its muddled positions on the issues. When there was a vote on same sex marriage, the NDP voted 100% in favour - the Liberals - well - they let their MPs vote any way they like and take no actual position as a party. Afghanistan? The NDP and to their credit the BQ) vote 100% NO to Harper. The so-called official opposition - well - they take no position as a party and they let their MPs vote every which way. Are the Liberals actually a party or a just a collection of Independents huddling under one roof with no common values, beliefs or platform?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 18 May 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When did voting in accordance with ones conscience / wishes of ones constituents become a bad thing? I would have thought that most on this board are fed up with voting along party lines, and would applaud this approach.
From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 18 May 2006 12:18 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is now clear that if you want to vote for a party in the ROC that is clearly committed to ending the mission in Afghanistan the ONLY choice is the NDP. The Liberals are as unreliable on this issue as they are on any other progressive issue.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 18 May 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
G Wolf: I would have thought that most on this board are fed up with voting along party lines, and would applaud this approach.

Pull the other leg. People on this board are fed up with unprincipled turncoats like David Emerson that put personal ambition ahead of political integrity and abandon those that put him in office after using them for their work and money. Party lines chasten and control such selfish individuals.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 May 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:
When did voting in accordance with ones conscience / wishes of ones constituents become a bad thing? I would have thought that most on this board are fed up with voting along party lines, and would applaud this approach.

I've never voted on party lines in my life, as I've never belonged to a political party. When I lived in Ontario, I voted Liberal, NDP , and once Conservative (when Bill Davis was Ed. Minister - he did good work on the community colleges). Doesn't matter how I vote here in Manicouagan, the BQ guy always gets in. I voted for the Liberal guy here last time because he's a personal friend of mine. The NDP guy here (Pierre Ducasse) needs to find a more hospitable riding, he'll never win here.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 May 2006 12:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there such a thing as a "hospitable riding" for the NDP anywhere in Quebec? On the surface of it manicouagan ought to be as good a place to run as any. Isn't it a very working class, heavily unionized riding that is not unlike other ridings that the NDP tends to win in the rest of Canada (ie: Timmins-James Bay, the Soo, Churchill, Western Arctic, Skeena etc...)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 May 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Is there such a thing as a "hospitable riding" for the NDP anywhere in Quebec? On the surface of it manicouagan ought to be as good a place to run as any. Isn't it a very working class, heavily unionized riding that is not unlike other ridings that the NDP tends to win in the rest of Canada (ie: Timmins-James Bay, the Soo, Churchill, Western Arctic, Skeena etc...)

Well, Ducasse is the NDP's 'star candidate' or so I've read, and, IIRC, always finishes third or fourth out of the top four parties that run candidates here.

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 May 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Such is the fate of NDP candidates anywhere in Quebec. I guess I figure that if he is going to be a distant 3rd or 4th anyways (at least until the BQ implodes), he might as well run in his hometown rather than as a parachute where he has no ties and where there is little reason to believe he would do any better.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 May 2006 01:21 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I agree. But Ducasse would make a great MP if he could get elected. He'll never get elected here. If not the BQ, then either the Liberals or Conservatives (this is Mulroney's old riding) will get in.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 18 May 2006 03:32 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Grizzled Wolf wrote:

When did voting in accordance with ones conscience / wishes of ones constituents become a bad thing?


In principle, nothing's wrong with these reasons for casting a vote, though I doubt in these circumstances that any MP had much chance to seriously consult their constituents' wishes. Indeed, one of the more undemocratic features of Harper's surprise vote is that its short timeframe almost certainly prevented most interested citizens from communicating their wishes to their elected representatives.

As for MPs who 'voted their conscience,' they still remain open to criticism on the substance of their vote. Even those MPs who generally support what Canada has been doing in Afghanistan can be called to account for supporting a hastily-conceived extension with so many basic questions left unanswered.

To borrow a term from theology, we might expect our MPs to have a 'well-formed conscience,' and so to have exercised due diligence, critical thought and prudence before casting a vote in favour of a project Stephen Harper almost certainly conceived of to help stave off growing public criticism of the Afghanistan mission.

To give an example relevant to this case: Michael Ignatieff. Since the Iraq Invasion of Iraq started to go horribly wrong, the Human Rights Professor has frequently retreated to the defense that his conscience--offended at Saddam's brutal treatment of the Kurds--wouldn't let him stand with those who opposed the innvasion.

He can try that defense if he likes, but I don't think it lets him off the hook: Where was his conscientious evaluation of the likely consequences of launching a war of aggression against Iraq? The Kurds suffered grossly under Saddam, to be sure (and they have suffered elsewhere, as well, like in Turkey, where the suffering has been inflicted with the support of the 'Empire Lite' to which Ignatieff sings hymns), but tens of thousands of likely Iraqi deaths under the invasion and occupation would seem to weigh on the conscience as well, no?

And now, Ignatieff once again has voted for an ill-defined, badly planned, poorly explained campaign in the 'War on Terror,' whose defenders have justified it mainly by rhetorical appeals to sentiment. He dresses up his approval, of course, with talk of 'paradigm shifts,' but someone who--as Ignatieff did--appeared to satisfy himself with the kind of non-answers coming out of the mouth of Peter MacKay just isn't thinking critically about these events.

Not a stellar record: his conscience should have a sharper edge, as should those of other MPs and, indeed, all of us.

I can't resist, in closing, this evaluation of Igntieff in Chomsky's new book, Failed States:

quote:
Washington's decision to exempt itself from international law even beyond the ample precedents has gained the partial support of people regarded as leading advocates of human rights, such as Michael Ignatieff, chair of the human rights program at Harvard, who supports violations of the Geneva Conventions, and indeed of US law, on 'lesser evil' grounds that are justified by his personal sentiments.
Yep, that's about right, and those 'personal sentiment' arguments are as open to criticism as the similar 'conscience-based' arguments made by other MPs on this or other questions.

[ 18 May 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sanityatlast
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12414

posted 18 May 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for Sanityatlast        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:
When did voting in accordance with ones conscience / wishes of ones constituents become a bad thing? I would have thought that most on this board are fed up with voting along party lines, and would applaud this approach.

It's not a bad thing and I applaud those MPs who lsten to their constituents or vote their conscious.


From: Alberta | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
happy go leftie (Red Tory)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11640

posted 18 May 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for happy go leftie (Red Tory)        Edit/Delete Post
I applaud anyone who voted NO to this dastardly " Harper reconstructed" mission. It is not the Nato mission that was to begin in February 2006, not the UN mission in Kabul, it is the operation "enduring freedom" under U.S. command.

Harper changed the mission, yet gave assurances to some MP's that he did not. Well he did. The Nato command that was to take effect in February 2006 was very sneakily cancelled "delayed" indefinitely by Harper the junior G.W.

Harper's assurances about aid and other promises swayed some MP's to believe he was telling the truth. When has Harper told the truth about anything. His entire dictatorship has been to conceal, control and manipulate the message.

We are not in the Nato mission as originally scheduled to take over in February, we are in the "kill first", "search and destroy" mission of Rumsfeld and Cheney. We are now going to be complicit in mass aggression, concentration camps, torture, and ethnic cleansing of the imperialist on the extreme right.

The mission in Kabul was amazingly successful, the new mission in the large Kandahar "Pashtun" Province was supposed to change on February 2006, to respect the international conventions and the rule of law. Harper has removed that possibility, while pretending that this is the same mission. With so little time to investigate the conditions of this mission allowed by the "you're either with us or against us" Mr. Harper, it is no doubt that some MP's were far too trusting of Harper's assurances than they should have been.

If later these same MP's find out more facts, there is no doubt they will turn on Harper and he will wear this outrage, as he should.

There should have been more votes against than for this, and this is a crime against Canada, a crime against humanity now perpetrated on Canadians by the zealot extremists of the G.W. Party fronting themselves as Conservatives in Canada.


From: suburban outskirts | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480

posted 18 May 2006 06:06 PM      Profile for Jooge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
I wouldn't call it a "ploy," but I somehow have the feeling that there were at least a handful of Liberals who voted no, who would have voted yes had there votes been needed.

I don't think you are that far off of the mark at all. The best result from a Liberal prespective would be to have the vote pass but with a very slim majority. That way they can still claim that a majority of Liberal MPs voted against it if public opionion slides that way, but also be able to claim that they helped it pass if public opinion goes the other way.

What really annoys me is that Paul Martin didn't even bother to turn up and vote for such a criitcal issue. For a guy who was set to lead the country forward four short months ago this is deplorable.


From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 May 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by happy go leftie (Red Tory):
I applaud anyone who voted NO to this dastardly " Harper reconstructed" mission. It is not the Nato mission that was to begin in February 2006, not the UN mission in Kabul, it is the operation "enduring freedom" under U.S. command.

Harper changed the mission, yet gave assurances to some MP's that he did not. Well he did. The Nato command that was to take effect in February 2006 was very sneakily cancelled "delayed" indefinitely by Harper the junior G.W.


Mr Harper had nothing whatsoever to do with the "change in the mission". All Canadian troops in Afghanistan (with some minor exceptions) came under Operation Enduring Freedom on 18 Oct 2005, when our major conribution to ISAF in kabul was ended.

As to cancelling the transition of Regional Command South fom OEF to ISAF, again, Mr Harper had nothing to do with it at all. The original timing for ISAF Stage III expansion called for the transition to occur in May 2006 (two months after Canada took command of RC South and provided a Battle group). The schedule has since slipped to the right, and IIRC the current target is July 2006. This shift was caused by a host of factors, but is mostly to do with the ISAF HQ rotation from the Italian Corps to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, and the reticence of the Dutch to come under OEF.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 May 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Pull the other leg. People on this board are fed up with unprincipled turncoats like David Emerson that put personal ambition ahead of political integrity and abandon those that put him in office after using them for their work and money. Party lines chasten and control such selfish individuals.


Hmm - that surprises me. I would have thought that voting along party lines serves to marginalise MPs, and as a result disenfranchises the average voter.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 May 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Think of party lines as an ingredient list in some food that you're purchasing. It could all be B.S. but at least it's a start.

The other thing about parties is that their presence is bound to encourage programmatic thinking on the part of the voters rather than the trivia of personality contests. And for people, like those on the left, who want to insist on reasoned debate, that's a good thing. Mind you, if proportional representation comes to pass in Canada, or in some of the Provinces, it might be time to consider passing laws regarding the internal functioning of political parties. There still has to be a balance between the individual and the group.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 19 May 2006 07:29 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberals made the worst move possible. Granted they're clearly transitioning from their original position of supporting the mission, to opposing it, and maybe some have genuine reasons to oppose it. That said it's clear all parties were modifying their position on this issue, for political and not necessarily principled reasons, but all that being said its clear that the Liberals handled this spectacularly badly - at least one can say the BQ and NDP have a position on this issue and won't be tied to its increasing negatives. Harper smells the weakness and division in the LP, and he probably wants another election (so long as it can be blamed on someone else) as soon as possible to take advantage of that. And he knows that the Liberals look ridiculous on this issue because A) they originally supported the mission by introducing it in the first place, B) they've flip-flopped rather quickly, C) they still have a significant minority of MP's who either support the mission or didn't bother to vote either way so, D) they look like they can't come to terms with a pressing political issue and thus aren’t fit to govern and perhaps worst of all E) still look like they don't have any credibility or principles (which is what caused them to loose in the first place).

All this will do for the Liberals is highlight the Conservatives inevitable argument that the CP is the only national party capable of forming a strong government. If the LP was smart it would've voted uniformly no against this mission, and left Harper in the tenuous position of not having the political will from the house to "extend the mission" yet extending it anyways showing how authoritarian and anti-democratic he is, which is clearly one of his many achillies heels. Doing that would've gotten the accusations of hypocrisy that were going to come anyways out of the way quicker as the quicker things are dealt with the more time there is for the people to dismiss the relevance of an issue, rather then dragging the issue out, and it would've left Harper holding the bag for the mission which would only be another knock against him in the cities and Quebec where he so desperately needs to break out so as to win that majority.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 May 2006 07:43 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There was a lot of confusion. I think most of the liberal MPs were upset with Harpoon's pushing the vote so quickly instead of allowing prior committee discussion on it, and those who voted 'yes' may have thought (wrongly) that it's simply the original mission being continued. Those who voted 'no' - in all three Opposition parties - obviously gave it some thought. It was easier for Layton to get unanimity on the vote because there's only 29 MPs to deal with, and, Graham has 105, plus he's not even an elected leader of the party, and simply had no authority to allow anything other than a free vote. I think Graham himself was boxed in; he had no choice but to vote yes. Iggy and Brison effectively skedadled their leadership hopes by falling in line with the Cons. This was all about politics, and we'll see more of this bullshit from Harpoon very soon. He's on a crusade to divide the Opposition on his way to a majority.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kenehan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12163

posted 19 May 2006 08:53 PM      Profile for Kenehan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remember this?
quote:
(The NDP and the Bloc) are the ones that created the Harper government. They're the ones that are going to have to accommodate it.
Of course not.

Just like the Liberals don't remember this.


From: Ontario | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 May 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberal position was set out in an Op-Ed piece in today's Globe and Mail by Eugene Lang. Lang was chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham. Excerpts:
quote:
The government framed the issue as a stark choice between extending the current mission in Kandahar or withdrawing the Canadian Forces entirely from Afghanistan.

In reality, the choice is not black and white at all. To grasp the real options for Canada in Afghanistan, you need to understand the complex nature of the current mission and the history behind it.
....
Mr. Martin, who was never keen on Canada's presence in Afghanistan, reluctantly approved this expanded mission, principally because he was told it would not preclude a second significant Canadian Forces deployment to Darfur or Haiti, both of which were preoccupying him. There was also an understanding at that time that the combat part of the Kandahar mission would be in place for one year only, but that the PRT would likely stay beyond that point. I was in the room in the spring of 2005 when those decisions and commitments were made.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 May 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is an extremely interesting article. It suggests that the original Chretien decision on Afghanistan included an exit strategy, and that what we have now done is trashed that exit strategy:

quote:
In 2003, Jean Chrétien decided that Canada would offer to command and contribute 2,000 troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a multinational NATO mission in Kabul. Its mandate fell somewhere between combat and peacekeeping and was designed to provide security and stability to the nascent Afghan government.

Canada's then military leadership was concerned that the Canadian Forces would get bogged down in ISAF, unable to extricate themselves for several years. As a result, an exit strategy was developed. It was decided that, after a year of commanding and contributing a large number of troops to ISAF, Canada would deploy a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan. The PRT would be made up of 200 to 300 soldiers, plus other civilian government officials, and would allow Canada to gracefully bow out of ISAF, yet remain committed to Afghanistan and carry out important reconstruction tasks -- such as training police and advising on governance -- elsewhere in the country.


To me, it appears that the essence of the article is that Canada got the "Kandahar" operation because others were faster in choosing peaceful territories, and now, we may be left holding the bag after other countries remove their troops.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 May 2006 11:57 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Think of party lines as an ingredient list in some food that you're purchasing. It could all be B.S. but at least it's a start.

The other thing about parties is that their presence is bound to encourage programmatic thinking on the part of the voters rather than the trivia of personality contests. And for people, like those on the left, who want to insist on reasoned debate, that's a good thing. Mind you, if proportional representation comes to pass in Canada, or in some of the Provinces, it might be time to consider passing laws regarding the internal functioning of political parties. There still has to be a balance between the individual and the group.



Ok - so it is a good day today, for I have learned something. That is the most cogent argument for voting on party lines that I have ever heard. Food for thought - when I launch on my third career...politics.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca