Pat Buchanan warns again, this time about war with Iran. - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Start Anew 223shootersc Books, Movies & Stories 1101 12-24-2018 09:53 PM
Gather around the campfire OR Never step on the Butterflies MayDay Books, Movies & Stories 230 04-26-2018 07:37 PM
The skein of your life was woven long ago. Chapter 1 MayDay Books, Movies & Stories 231 04-14-2017 01:04 PM
legitimate politics versus political war deprogramming services Political News and Discussion 1 11-01-2016 02:18 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2017, 02:20 PM
Natty's Avatar
Natty Natty is offline
Grim Reaper
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia/Maryland
Age: 62
Posts: 459
Thanks: 36
Thanked 748 Times in 262 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

I remember when Pat Buchanan won the Maryland Presidential primary. I say give Israel our blessings and support, to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. We already gave Israel at least 55 GBU-28's. Those are 5,000 lb bunker buster bombs.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Natty For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 03:12 PM
Fonz Fonz is online now
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 910
Thanks: 5,287
Thanked 1,988 Times in 670 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
Your hostility toward an opposing world view is duly noted.
Your chagrin at having your neoconservative based rhettoric exposed and called out for the nonsense that it truly is, is duly noted. AND enjoyed.



Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
Agreed.

I think it is incumbent on civilized countries of the world, particularly nations with roots in Western Civilization, to stand up against Islamic Jihad. In vernacular that you might prefer, civilized countries of the world should be convinced standing up against Islamic Jihad is best for them.
Ok, now we might be getting somewhere. Yes, eliminating or at least containing Islamic extremism and terrorism until it can be mostly ridded everywhere, IS best for everyone. The neocon approach to handling that is most decidedly NOT best for everyone. Especially those it claims to want to be helping. It is a critical distinction to make, one I've yet to see you make in fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
For the record, I am not supporting a US invasion against Iran.
You arent fooling anyone reading any of this Peter. You are already quoted in this very thread as saying that "No war is more justified today than war with Iran." Noone here is dumb enough to fall for your conditioning that statement with a fantasy coalition that neither exists nor has a chance in hades of ever taking the primary responsibility of the US. Which means that yes, a US invasion would take place and that yes, you would support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
And I am certainly not supporting US invasion against Iran because Israel wants it.
Yawn. I've seen the moonwalk and the back pedal from lots of people like you before, Peter. You have any other moves?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
I stand opposed to Islamic Jihad, which Iran is the world's premier purveyor with Saudi Arabia a close second. Furthermore, I realize there is more than militancy to Islamic Jihad, e.g., intellectual, word, mouth, immigration, birth rate, financial, etc.
What do you want? A cookie? I reckon every member on this board is opposed to Islamic Jihad and terrorism. The difference between the ulterior motive tainted, neocon methodology that you've bought into and what many conservative Trump supporters such as myself would advocate for, is having success or failing. If you want a recent reminder of what failure in war planning and management looks like, take a peek at the neoconservative infested administrations of GW Bush and Obama. No conservative worth his salt wants to see a continuation of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
What I'd like you to clarify is are you opposed to Islamic Jihad or do you support it? Is the area we disagree merely HOW to oppose Islamic Jihad? Since 9/11 there have been over 30,000 Islamic Jihadi attacks. Many of these against fellow Americans. Since the Shah of Iran was deposed in the 1970's, more Americans have been killed by Islamic Jihad than Russians, Chinese or Europeans and all other human motivations combined (excluding common criminals). My motivation is to do what I can to stop my grandchildren from being Islamic Jihadi's next victims. So, you can take your contemptuous neocon BS and shove it.
Ah, the indignation again. Well Peter, sounds like I've hit real close, if not right on, the mark again. Believe it or not, like it or not, this is actually a hopeful sign from you. Read some Buchanan.org archives, a lot less Neocon Inc Daily, you'll begin to shrug that indoctrination right off. I fully recognize that you do have a fairly acute case of it but I'm pulling for you.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-05-2017, 03:23 PM
Optimist Optimist is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,342
Thanks: 42,247
Thanked 18,024 Times in 8,000 Posts
Default

Peter, it took the civilized world uniting in a stance on piracy on the high seas to bring that business to an end for a considerable period of time. A similar stance on terrorism would work very well, be the culprits shia or sunni....
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Optimist For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 04:00 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 16,503
Thanks: 11,809
Thanked 30,112 Times in 10,537 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
You arent fooling anyone reading any of this Peter. You are already quoted in this very thread as saying that "No war is more justified today than war with Iran." Noone here is dumb enough to fall for your conditioning that statement with a fantasy coalition that neither exists nor has a chance in hades of ever taking the primary responsibility of the US. Which means that yes, a US invasion would take place and that yes, you would support it.
Another logical conclusion is that no war is justified if a war against Iran is not.

But for the record, so as not to be accused of being deceptive, I would support action against Iran - even if not US invasion - such as crippling bombing IF they are unwilling to abandon Islamic Jihad. If that makes me a neocon in your book, I'm OK with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
What do you want? A cookie? I reckon every member on this board is opposed to Islamic Jihad and terrorism.
Your refusal to simply answer the question is duly noted.

The question was do YOU oppose to Islamic Jihad. You can call me names all you want. At least I answer questions and don't reply with childish, 'do you want a cookie?' to the question of our time.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 04:59 PM
Fonz Fonz is online now
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 910
Thanks: 5,287
Thanked 1,988 Times in 670 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
Another logical conclusion is that no war is justified if a war against Iran is not.

But for the record, so as not to be accused of being deceptive, I would support action against Iran - even if not US invasion - such as crippling bombing IF they are unwilling to abandon Islamic Jihad. If that makes me a neocon in your book, I'm OK with that.
Keep up with me here Peter. The thrust of my OP was to highlight the neoconservative movement's attempt to exact its influence over the Trump administrations handling of foreign policy and war if it should come to it. Now, the neocon agenda is well documented as calling for nothing short of regime change in Iran. Bombing does not equal regime change Peter, you know that, the neocons know that, and we all know that isnt what theyre after, or where it will stop.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
Your refusal to simply answer the question is duly noted.

The question was do YOU oppose to Islamic Jihad. You can call me names all you want. At least I answer questions and don't reply with childish, 'do you want a cookie?' to the question of our time.
Of course I oppose it. Seriously, these kiddie games, the feigned ignorance and intellectual dishonesty that you clutter and derail people's threads with makes the temptation to put you on ignore almost impossible to resist.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-05-2017, 05:48 PM
hoplite59 hoplite59 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 5,220
Thanks: 10,687
Thanked 11,431 Times in 3,313 Posts
Default

The problem is that they've established dozens of centrifuge/processing sites as a type of redundancy/diversity at hardened facilities deep under ground. They learned from Saddam's program being taken out by the Israeli's a few decades ago. Obviously conventional war ain't gonna get it down unless we want to invade another ME country, which would be very stupid.

Also consider the response. After all for every strike there's a counter strike. They will shut down Hormuz and destabilize the flow of oil in a disastrous way. Additionally, do you really think the Russians and Chinese will ally with us to take out Iran, seriously ? All three want to **** can the dollar and go their own way. Way too much downside, not nearly enough upside to committing our Talented youth, Time and Treasure to foreign adventure.

Also consider the sleeper revenge cells they have planted for a while in various Western Nations. They know asymmetrical tactics are the only way they can do damage. Expect vicious terrorist events in the West if we attack.

OB had the golden opportunity in '09 to support the Reformers that tried to get rid of the Ayatollahs. Covertly fund and help build those elements and their network coupled with crippling sanctions. Then work to try and build a coalition of their obvious natural enemies (Saudi, Turkey etc) to lead the charge with their ground forces. It's about time they got off of their asses and sent their boys to fight their battles and fund these operations. We can send our SOF in their to train and pacify indigenous elements, call in air strikes, etc. However, no commitment of large expeditionary US forces to get sucked into another quagmire unless we are prepared to take the gloves off with no ROE's and commit to total war and end it as quickly and overwhelmingly as possible.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hoplite59 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 05:55 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 16,503
Thanks: 11,809
Thanked 30,112 Times in 10,537 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Keep up with me here Peter. The thrust of my OP was ...
No kidding? I don't care what the 'thrust' was. I have the capacity to contribute my own original ideas connected to the OP (war with Iran) even if that was not your 'thrust.' Did I keep up with you sufficiently to meet with your approval?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Bombing does not equal regime change Peter, you know that, the neocons know that, and we all know that isnt what theyre after, or where it will stop.
Since I am not driven by regime change then that makes me not a neocon, by your own criteria, right?

And I am serious about this; what is the alternative to being a 'neocon?' I've only heard this term 'neocon' used as a pejorative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Of course I oppose it. Seriously, these kiddie games ...
Yea, right! That's why you are the one playing the kiddie games in not simply answering a question like an adult. Instead of delving into it, all you can do is do is resort to name calling.

So, how do you oppose Islamic Jihad besides just in theory? By that I mean, as it pertains to THE premier State sponsor of Islamic Jihad (Iran), what non-verbal, non-financial actions are you willing to support to defeat it? Otherwise, you are just talk.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 06:00 PM
DWwolf DWwolf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,125
Thanks: 66
Thanked 4,752 Times in 1,874 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
No war is more justified today than war with Iran. But it needs to be a worldwide coalition led by our supposed Muslim allies in the region Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Arab Emirates, and Turkey supported by Russia, Europe and the US. Or let it be revealed to a candid world that Western Civilization does not have Muslim allies in truth - only 'from a certain POV.'

Saudi Arabia is nearly as bad as Iran. They need to take the lead in building the regional coalition OR Trump needs to make it clear that he will withdraw and Iran can have its way with the kingdom.

From the article 'The problem with making a threat public — Iran is “on notice” — is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.' As if their launching a ballistic missile test in violation of the $1.3B deal with the US last summer is not a public threat to America's credibility?

Why did Trump and Flynn feel the need to do this now? The question is very naive. See above missile test.



True that!



As usual, you are completely wrong. By launching a ballistic missile test in violation of the $1.3B deal with the US, Iran rattled its saber. Iran is akin to Nazi Germany with BHO akin to Chamberlain.

I've heard all my life the Iran is the world's largest State sponsor of terrorism - Islamic Jihadi terrorism. It is an existential threat to Western Civilization. See immigration Jihad in Europe. The proposition is simple: stop sponsoring Islamic Jihadi terrorism or be destroyed.
SA *IS* as bad as Iran, and far more effective.
Wahabi schools across the globe.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DWwolf For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 06:48 PM
ksmedman's Avatar
ksmedman ksmedman is offline
Dunning-Kruger Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 7,021
Thanks: 11,276
Thanked 19,986 Times in 5,184 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWwolf View Post
SA *IS* as bad as Iran, and far more effective.
Wahabi schools across the globe.
Some from Saudi Arabia, not the govt position or desire.
They're battling that exact thing in Yemen right now, got a frigate hit for their troubles. Iran is the instigator and propagator of much of this mindset. Beating them down would definitely disrupt the worldwide spread of terrorism, and the support for it.

Not saying Saudi has any kind of clean conscious on this stuff, but their ruling family knows where their bread is buttered. There's no money in being another Iran, no future in it. Heck, Iran would be basically done by now if Obama wasn't such a muslim fluffboy...

Trump isn't that, has no reason to be that, and won't stand for it. War with Iran would be a regional disruptor, but not some world wide issue. It won't even be like Afghanistan as I'm betting it taps into the vast Iran democratic underground. They tried in 2009, but Obama was a *****. Trump isn't. They can win, and win bigly this time.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ksmedman For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 10:20 PM
BlasphemousBill's Avatar
BlasphemousBill BlasphemousBill is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 5,424
Thanked 6,015 Times in 2,215 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
No war is more justified today than war with Iran. But it needs to be a worldwide coalition led by our supposed Muslim allies in the region Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Arab Emirates, and Turkey supported by Russia, Europe and the US. Or let it be revealed to a candid world that Western Civilization does not have Muslim allies in truth - only 'from a certain POV.'

Saudi Arabia is nearly as bad as Iran. They need to take the lead in building the regional coalition OR Trump needs to make it clear that he will withdraw and Iran can have its way with the kingdom.

From the article 'The problem with making a threat public — Iran is “on notice” — is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.' As if their launching a ballistic missile test in violation of the $1.3B deal with the US last summer is not a public threat to America's credibility?

Why did Trump and Flynn feel the need to do this now? The question is very naive. See above missile test.



True that!



As usual, you are completely wrong. By launching a ballistic missile test in violation of the $1.3B deal with the US, Iran rattled its saber. Iran is akin to Nazi Germany with BHO akin to Chamberlain.

I've heard all my life the Iran is the world's largest State sponsor of terrorism - Islamic Jihadi terrorism. It is an existential threat to Western Civilization. See immigration Jihad in Europe. The proposition is simple: stop sponsoring Islamic Jihadi terrorism or be destroyed.

Iran has been a major adversary of the United States. It has committed numerous terrorist acts against us. We've stuck back against Iran strongly numerous times. We should never trust Iran.

However, Iran is the enemy of the majority of the Muslim world. As much as Iran hates the United States, the much larger Sunni Muslim world hates Iran even more. The only issue they agree on is Israel. If Shiite Muslims were to conquer Jerusalem tomorrow, Sunnis would be besieging it the next day. There's a reason we remain such strong allies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.

We don't need to go to war with Iran. The Sunni Arabs outnumber the Shiite Persians by a large margin and always will.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BlasphemousBill For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2017, 01:44 AM
katielyn katielyn is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NW corner NC
Posts: 2,323
Thanks: 1,218
Thanked 3,434 Times in 1,286 Posts
Default Obama dealt Trump

a bad hand to play and now Trump has to make lemonade from the stacks of lemons he inherited.

In my opinion an America first policy has to include stabilizing the ME if for no other reason than to halt the refugees that threatens the stability of western society. To do that may require alliances with bad actors that have similar concerns. It also requires supporting stabilized countries in the ME that we may not agree with.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to katielyn For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2017, 06:52 AM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 16,503
Thanks: 11,809
Thanked 30,112 Times in 10,537 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlasphemousBill View Post
Iran has been a major adversary of the United States. It has committed numerous terrorist acts against us. We've stuck back against Iran strongly numerous times. We should never trust Iran.
...
We don't need to go to war with Iran. The Sunni Arabs outnumber the Shiite Persians by a large margin and always will.
Nonsequitor. Your facts are uncoordinated. True, one Muslim sect is outnumbered by another. This does not change the fact that both sects in Iran and Saudi Arabia have acted the US.

The differences are in Saudi, it's been individuals, Iran signed a $1.3 B deal and just launched a ballistic missile test in violation of it.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2017, 05:02 PM
michael2522's Avatar
michael2522 michael2522 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 216
Thanks: 35
Thanked 223 Times in 103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
http://buchanan.org/blog/coming-clash-iran-126494

I've quoted Buchanan in this article as saying:

"High among the reasons that many supported Trump was his understanding that George W. Bush blundered horribly in launching an unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq."

Yep. This was one of the things that differentiated Trump from the other republican candidates (with a few exceptions) early on and throughout the election. Another was that Trump would focus on helping to get our trade, economic and domestic house back in order, rather than getting sidetracked on more neocon fantasy foreign policy disasters.

A few things. Being a long time reader of Pat's blog, as a rule, he is right a hell of a lot more than he's wrong on his analysis of foreign policy positions, history and underlying motivations. I hope he is terribly wrong on this particular one. And I seriously hope that Trump, on foreign policy, does not prove to be another errand boy for the neoconservatives and Israeli hardliners.

This should be of concern to conservatives everywhere who have high hopes for some long overdue housekeeping on the domestic side of things here in the US as well. If the Trump administration preemptively chooses to upend Iran in the pursuit of regime change, GWOT, because Israel or Saudi Arabia told us to , whatever; he will be screwed to the floor tighter than a sheet of plywood and we can likely forget about any progress on the domestic front.

Like many of us here, Pat has written very supportive and hopeful pieces about Trump's presidency. But there are groups such as interventionists and neoconservatives that would happily sacrifice Trump's presidency, just as they did George W Bush's, if it means they can further their agenda by goading him into a sequence of events that soon takes him on a discrediting and self-destructive course that is far easier to get into than out of. These people are very determined, well-resourced, and attempting to place themselves or those they can easily influence into positions within his cabinet. John Bolton was one attempt, Elliot Abrams is the most recent.

Before the Iraq war began, Buchanan brought attention to the neocon element both within and outside of the Bush administration that was applying political pressure for war and he WARNED of the dangers and ramifications of allowing their agenda to come to fruition. Here are two links for some perspective and comparison.

Whose War, written in 2003 by Buchanan, just before the Iraq war.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...les/whose-war/

The open letter sent by neoconservatives to George W Bush calling for war with Iraq.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/open-l...t/article/1401
one word my friends...."Petrodollars"...if you don't understand it, go educate yourself.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2017, 05:07 PM
michael2522's Avatar
michael2522 michael2522 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 216
Thanks: 35
Thanked 223 Times in 103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlasphemousBill View Post
Iran has been a major adversary of the United States. It has committed numerous terrorist acts against us. We've stuck back against Iran strongly numerous times. We should never trust Iran.

However, Iran is the enemy of the majority of the Muslim world. As much as Iran hates the United States, the much larger Sunni Muslim world hates Iran even more. The only issue they agree on is Israel. If Shiite Muslims were to conquer Jerusalem tomorrow, Sunnis would be besieging it the next day. There's a reason we remain such strong allies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.

We don't need to go to war with Iran. The Sunni Arabs outnumber the Shiite Persians by a large margin and always will.
Please familiarize yourself with Iranian history...overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the overthrow of the Shah and of course the Petrodollar...you are being played my friends...and you are so convinced of the propaganda, you don't even want to look at the facts.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2017, 05:14 PM
michael2522's Avatar
michael2522 michael2522 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 216
Thanks: 35
Thanked 223 Times in 103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlasphemousBill View Post
Iran has been a major adversary of the United States. It has committed numerous terrorist acts against us. We've stuck back against Iran strongly numerous times. We should never trust Iran.

However, Iran is the enemy of the majority of the Muslim world. As much as Iran hates the United States, the much larger Sunni Muslim world hates Iran even more. The only issue they agree on is Israel. If Shiite Muslims were to conquer Jerusalem tomorrow, Sunnis would be besieging it the next day. There's a reason we remain such strong allies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.

We don't need to go to war with Iran. The Sunni Arabs outnumber the Shiite Persians by a large margin and always will.
The moral equivalent of the founding fathers????
Click image for larger version

Name:	taliban_raygun.png
Views:	17
Size:	150.5 KB
ID:	204058
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-26-2017, 05:21 PM
RKW's Avatar
RKW RKW is offline
Generator Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: A1 on the jukebox
Posts: 3,378
Thanks: 9,962
Thanked 5,894 Times in 2,019 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael2522 View Post
The moral equivalent of the founding fathers????
Attachment 204058
http://www.snopes.com/ronald-reagan-taliban-photo/
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to RKW For This Useful Post:
Old 04-27-2017, 02:59 PM
Optimist Optimist is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,342
Thanks: 42,247
Thanked 18,024 Times in 8,000 Posts
Default

Thanks for posting that, RKW. But you're going to draw smoke from the board's leftists on this one, I'd expect.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Optimist For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net