Saturday, 8 April 2017

Iraq's Oil and the War fought for it

Was the Iraq war about oil or Weapons of mass destruction?


We already know that the weapons of mass destruction didn't exist, several experts said they didn't exist and one lost his life in what could be said to be suspicious circumstances. The US and UK Governments said they acted on the best information they had at the time, but did they?

Its already been proven in the Chilcott inquiry that they didn't act on the best information and better decisions should have been made.  The main findings of the inquiry were published in Sir John Chilcotts public statement
  • The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified. 
  • Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate. 
  • The Government failed to achieve its stated objectives.

So we come to the oil, at various points in the lead up to the war the governments and Oil companies stated that they were not interested in the oil at all .. no interest. Blair even said that if they wanted oil they could do a deal with Saddam.  All this was proven to be a pack of lies.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
"Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show."



One of the best sources of information as it provides actual released official documents is this one.
http://www.fuelonthefire.org
"The departure of the last U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011 left a broken country and a host of unanswered questions. What was the war really about? Why and how did the occupation drag on for nearly nine years? And why did the troops have to leave? Now, in a gripping account of the war that dominated the last decade, investigative journalist Greg Muttitt takes us behind the scenes to answer these questions and tells the untold story of the oil politics that played out through the occupation."

Basically if you want proof that Oil was high on the list of priorities, this is it. There are many more links below. But this one has everything.

So Was It A War For Oil?
"I still get asked ´So was it a war for oil?´ I find it a surprising question, as it´s no secret that Iraq has nearly a tenth of the world´s remaining oil, nor that the Persian Gulf region as a whole has nearly a half (and at the time of the war it was more like two thirds). It´s only because of the insistence with which our politicians (Donald Trump aside) denied any role for oil that it became a question at all. And perhaps those very denials stimulated suspicions of a bigger conspiracy than it was."
  1. Oil company meetings with UK government, 2002-3
  2. British government strategy papers on Iraqi oil, 2003-4
  3. Jeremy Greenstock and lobbying for BP entry into Iraq, 2004
  4. BP contract for Rumaila field, 2009
  5. U.S. pre-war plans to privatize Iraq's oil, 2002-3

http://www.iraqicivilsociety.org/archives/1153
Today, ten years ago, a global demonstration took place in more than sixty countries around the world, involving millions, to protest against the upcoming war in Iraq. Refusing an illegal war of aggression, protesting against a war for oil, demonstrators firmly rejected the idea a people can be bombed into democracy. Today, ten years after, oil companies are making huge profits in Iraq. While labour rights are not recognised, and Saddam’s era anti-strike laws are still in force, foreign oil companies have signed 20-years contracts and are benefiting from this denial of the fundamental rights of Iraqi workers. Today, representatives of the Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative (ICSSI) from Italy, UK and France went to ENI, the Italian oil company, to deliver the following letter from Iraqi oil workers, which is also being sent to all foreign oil companies present in Iraq.


List of International Oil Companies in Iraqi Kurdistan Ive listed the main ones rest are on link
United Kingdom
Afren
Gulf Keystone Petroleum
Perenco
Sterling Energy
United States
Aspect Energy
Chevron
Hess
Hunt Petroleum
Murphy Oil Corporation
Canada
Groundstar Resources
Niko Resources
Shamaran Petroleum
Talisman Energy
Vast Exploration
WesternZagros
List of International Oil Companies in Iraq

Donald Trump made this comment in 2015


Donald Trump has/had interests in Oil ie. shares in companies it would be interesting to know what ones. Although it does depend where you look.

Trump sold all his stock holdings in June, spokesman claims
WASHINGTON – President-elect Donald Trump sold all of his stocks in June as he plunged into the costly general election campaign, his transition team abruptly announced Tuesday. His advisers provided no proof of the transactions and would not explain the apparent sell-off. 
The announcement comes amid swirling questions about potential conflicts of interest between Trump's expansive financial holdings and the decisions that will reach his desk as president. Some details of Trump's finances are unknown given that he never released his tax returns during the presidential campaign, breaking decades of precedent. 
On Tuesday, Trump said the government should cancel its multibillion-dollar order with Boeing for new Air Force One presidential planes. Asked on a conference call with reporters whether Trump had investments in Boeing, spokesman Jason Miller said the president-elect had sold all of his stocks in June. 
Trump's campaign did not announce the sell-off at the time, despite the fact that it could have been politically advantageous for the businessman to be seen taking steps to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

 My questions are

  1. If he did sell why not provide proof or has he just sold them to family if indeed they are sold.
  2. Why not release tax information like every other president has if you have nothing to hide?
  3. Trump capitalises on every possible thing, why not capitalise on the MAJOR fact that you've sold your shares?


I guess that's for another blog, does Trump have interests in Oil? and what are they?. May be a difficult one as hes certainly not very transparent. Something I find strange that Americans are not questioning. Its a bit like religion, blind faith. In my thinking there's a reason hes not being transparent and that's because hes hiding something.

My Opinion on Trump
More slippery than an eel in jelly and you cant trust what he says because he'll say the opposite the next day.



LINKS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 7 April 2017

Trumps Syria Attack ~ Loose Cannon?




"The US has carried out a missile strike against a Syrian air base in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town."
Is this more evidence that Trump is an accident waiting to happen?

Here are my thoughts as to why launching an attack without evidence is dangerous.
  1. "Response to a suspected chemical weapons attack"  We shouldn't be attacking when there is just a suspicion.
  2. It should be on evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt not just suspected.
  3. Jihadis must be rubbing their hands in glee all they have to do is set off chemical attacks and Trump will launch missiles at Assad.
  4. It may have been a Assad chemical attack or it may have been a conventional bomb hitting a chemical store on the ground, no hard evidence has been released.
  5. We already got into a war in Iraq on false information that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which was proved to be incorrect.
  6. That war created a vacuum and spawned ISIL.
  7. Both wars have created refugees that have swamped Europe.
  8. Russian is in Syria backing Assad.
  9. Russia has a base in Syria, one of 10 outside Russia and it wants to keep it.
  10. USA has 38 bases world wide.
  11. USA Would like it if Russia didn't have a base in Syria.
  12. As always we have to look at why the big players are moving chess pieces.
  13. Oil was the main reason for Iraq look at what companies now control Iraq oil fields.

LINKS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39523654
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

A Historic Day - "Remains" To Be Seen




I’m a neutral on Brexit… admittedly I voted remain after doing  a lot of research and seeing through the misinformation of the Brexit campaign. But I always wanted to leave,  just didn’t think it was going to improve things. To be honest if the Brexit campaign hadn’t employed misinformation I may have voted to leave.  However the vote is out…. albeit by a tiny majority, so let’s get on with it.   

My problem is still that I don’t trust the Tories to get a good deal for the majority of people. The way they ran the referendum was a shambles and has split the country, not brought it together. 

 I was bemused by what I was hearing on the radio today, so called “Brexiters” claiming that so called “Remainers” would be the cause of Britain not getting a good deal on leaving the EU ……. Really …come on REALLY!  Let not start trying to put the blame off on others before we even start or is the confident bravado waning now?

This has to stop we are going into no man’s land, we may end up better off, we may end up worse off. No one knows because it’s not been done before. It’s a coin flip and anyone who tells you different is just guessing. The more those that voted to leave keep name calling with “Remainer’s” “Remoaner’s” Etc the more the country will be divided.  

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. People who vote Tory don’t suddenly become labour supporters when Labour gets voted in, no they still have their ideal's and opinion’s and carry on arguing their point of view.

The beauty of this country is its still one of the most democratic countries in the world, regardless what we think of our politicians.  The only thing both camps should be doing now is scrutinising what deal this government is going to get for the Majority ….. I aint holding my breath.

One thing im sure of this wont just take 2 years.  We may leave the EU in 2 years but we will be sorting this out for 10 years plus.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, 16 March 2017

You can trust the Tories, I Think Not!


and on top of all that they are willing to trust someone who says stand on stage with your legs apart itll make you look good....... What chance have we got?



Lets break the meme down

 Note: We could expand all of these topics there's plenty of evidence available but in the interests of keeping things a reasonable size....

Lies
David Cameron rebuked by statistics watchdog over national debt claims – The PM said the government was ‘paying down Britain’s debts’ in a political broadcast, even though the debt is actually rising.
OBR head rebukes Osborne: the UK was never at risk of bankruptcy. Office for Budget Responsibility chief Robert Chote dismisses the Conservative “danger of insolvency” claim.
In the weeks after he took office, George Osborne justified his austerity programme by claiming that Britain was on “the brink of bankruptcy”. He told the Conservative conference in October 2010: “The good news is that we are in government after 13 years of a disastrous Labour administration that brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy.”

It was, of course, nonsense.

Misinformation
Iain Duncan Smith Rebuked Over Immigration Statistics – Iain Duncan Smith and the Department of Work and Pensions have been accused of publishing misleading immigration figures that were “highly vulnerable to misinterpretation”. Figures showing 371,000 immigrants were on benefits were rushed out by ministers with insufficient regard for “weaknesses” in the data, according to the UK Statistics Authority.
Grant Shapps rebuked by UK Statistics Authority for misrepresenting benefit figures – Yet another Conservative politician is caught making it up. Grant Shapps has joined his fellow Conservatives in the data hall of shame. In March, the Tory chairman claimed that “nearly a million people” (878,300) on incapacity benefit had dropped their claims, rather than face a new medical assessment for its successor, the employment and support allowance.
The figures, he said, “demonstrate how the welfare system was broken under Labour and why our reforms are so important”. The claim was faithfully reported by the Sunday Telegraph  but as the UK Statistics Authority has now confirmed in its response to Labour MP Sheila Gilmore (see below), it was entirely fabricated.

Insulting
Mrs May replied: "In relation to the figures on council houses, he's wrong. We have delivered on the one for one replacement on the Right to Buy."

Mrs May failed to back up her claim with any evidence.

Figures by her own government in March showed 49,573 homes had been sold off since 2012 but just 4,594 new ones had been started or bought on site.

The Prime Minister then mocked Mr Corbyn for his long-held tactic of asking Twitter followers for questions - so she read out one from 'Lewis'.
 "Lewis writes: 'Does she know in a recent poll on who would make a better Prime Minister, 'don't know' scored higher than Jeremy Corbyn ?'".
 Note: Interesting that Theresa May has the dubious accolade of answering less questions than Cameron now that's quite something. But always willing to throw insults to get away from answering a question.

 94 Billion to big Corporations
Taxpayers are handing businesses £93bn a year – a transfer of more than £3,500 from each household in the UK.


The total emerges from the first comprehensive account of what Britons give away to companies in grants, subsidies and tax breaks, published exclusively in the Guardian.
Many of the companies receiving the largest public grants over the past few years previously paid little or zero corporation tax, the analysis shows. They include some of the best-known names in Britain, such as Amazon, Ford and Nissan.

Failed economic targets
The Tory failure on the economy is increasingly clear for all to see. Osborne promised in 2010 to eliminate the structural deficit in five years and to preserve our AAA credit rating. He failed on both promises. His budget earlier this year revealed huge downgrades in estimates for future growth, wages, productivity and levels of investment. It also showed he was failing on two of the three targets he had set himself on welfare spending and debt. As the economy stalls, he looks increasingly likely to fail on his third target – the economically illiterate promise to run a surplus by 2020.


Fined a record £70,000
The Conservative Party has been fined a record £70,000 for breaking election expenses rules.
The party insists its failure to report six figure sums it spent on trying to win three by-elections and the general election was an "administrative error".
The Electoral Commission said there was a "realistic prospect" the money had given the party an advantage.
The Metropolitan Police is now looking at the evidence to see if the reporting omissions were deliberate.
"She (The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett) added that having had to get a court order to get information was "very disappointing"."
BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg said that if prosecutions go ahead "we could be looking at by-elections".
NOTE: That the fine could have been higher but they are restricted to £2,000 per offence. Which they are aiming to try and increase in the future.


Electoral Commission's findings...
  • The Conservative Party’s 2015 UK Parliamentary general election spending return was missing payments worth at least £104,765.
  • Separately, payments worth up to £118,124 were either not reported to the Commission or were incorrectly reported by the party.
  • A portion of this amount should have been included in the Party’s return but wasn’t. 
  • Another portion was put into the Party’s return when it was candidate spending in a number of constituencies where the Party spent money promoting individual candidates.
  • In addition, the Party did not include the required invoices or receipts for 81 payments to the value of £52,924.
  • Finally, the Party failed to maintain records explaining the amounts it invoiced to candidates in three 2014 by-elections, for work on their campaigns.
  • Therefore the accuracy of the amounts could not be verified.


 Possible Criminal Charges

Twelve police forces have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charges over election expenses.


Links
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195
https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/a-list-of-official-rebukes-for-tory-lies
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/05/tories-dismal-economic-record-exposes-their-hollow-rhetoric
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/16/conservatives-fined-70000-mp-reported-police-following-investigation/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/14/conservative-mp-craig-mackinlay-interviewed-under-caution-over-election-spending
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/what-happens-when-the-tories-are-certain-theyll-win-well-find-out/
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 20 February 2017

Paul Nuttall UKIP a road crash waiting to happen....

Paul Nuttall UKIP road crash waiting to happen .... Oh wait

Not the best picture, sorry Paul but ....

He is just a liability for UKIP, Nuttall's first grand shoot myself in the foot statement was that he thought the NHS was unsustainable and Privatisation should be looked at.
That didn't go down well with the assembled crowd, so some weeks later and careful thought and probably advise from someone, he changed his view to that of UKIP. Support the NHS free at point of use.

Myself I'm not convinced that his personal view has changed though, hes just saying what he thinks will get him votes.

Congruency is important in politics and Nuttal is anything but Congruent.  All I can say is bring back Nigel Farrage, love him or hate him he was a good speaker.

So his next, lets blunder into this one episode, was his lets try and make some votes off the Hillsbourough disaster. Really not a good idea Paul even if you were there, maybe you should have shown a little concern a few years earlier.

"As if enduring nearly three decades of lies and cover-ups wasn’t enough, the families of the victims of Hillsborough now have in their midst a would-be MP who in my opinion is using the disaster for political gain."
"Paul Nuttall’s admission that he did not actually lose “close personal friends” in the tragedy, despite these words being on his website for six years, comes after he signed nomination forms at an address in Stoke he’d apparently never been to."
Come on Paul sorry, but its been on your website for years and you didn't know, really? Either way that's inexcusable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/paul-nuttall-ukip-hillsborough-stoke-central-election-truth-matters-a7581376.html


Well I did say he was a liability......

Now we have party officials resigning while Nuttall and Banks go to ground and try to figure out how they get themselves out of the mess they have created.
"Two UKIP branch officials have resigned from the party, claiming leader Paul Nuttall and donor Arron Banks showed "crass insensitivity" about the Hillsborough disaster."
"Mr Nuttall said last week he was "sorry" over false claims that he had lost close friends in the 1989 tragedy."
"Mr Banks later tweeted he was "sick to death" of hearing about Hillsborough."
"Mr Monkham added that he "felt that supporting a libertarian party was the right thing to do in order to effect change within the political system in this country".
"Unfortunately that dream has been shattered and the potential of UKIP has been squandered by people who have demonstrated they are not fit to lead at present."
"Mr Nuttall, who is an MEP for northwest England, is a candidate in the Stoke Central by-election, which is being held on Thursday."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39025522


Tipped by the bookies as in a position to win the byelection I think you may have blown it Paul but we shall wait and see, theres nowt stranger than voters.




LINKS
https://www.ft.com/content/ff654ace-f517-11e6-8758-6876151821a6
http://uk.businessinsider.com/stoke-by-election-paul-nuttalls-false-hillsborough-claim-could-cost-ukips-victory-2017-2
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/17/stoke-by-election-odds-suggest-ukip-are-not-too-far-behind-labour-6454818/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, 16 February 2017

The Diane Abbott portrait Meme True but Misleading


OK Totally agree MPs shouldn't waste tax payers money, but it wasn't just Abbott was it. Eh?

Lets deal with the whole story as this just looks like a clumsy UKIP attempt to bash one party after their liability of a leader Paul Nuttall shot himself in the foot over Hillsborough.... Bring back Nigel lol

Anyway the Evening Standard broke a story ...

MPs spend £250,000 of public money on vanity portraits

Basically since 1995 (over 20 years ago) money has been spent on portraits and statues of MPs of all political parties.

So lets break it down into a simplified list, here's a selection of the main ones.


  • John Bercow spent £22,000 on a painting and another £15,000 on a frame.
  • £11,750 portrait of former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett
  • Diane Abbott £11,750 
  • £10,000 portrait of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, 
  • £8,000 painting of Kenneth Clarke 
  • £4,000 oil painting of William Hague. 
  • Tony Benn £2,000
  • Dennis Skinner £2,180
  • Sir John Major bronze bust by Anne Curry, costing £6,000
  • Tony Blair cost unknown
  • Margaret Thatcher statue £11,750.
  • Charles Kennedy cost unknown
  • Betty Boothroyd has been feature three times, in a £1,500 portrait in 1997, an £8,000 portrait in 1999 and a £9,000 bronze bust in 2000
  • Lord Ashdown, £2,000
  • Sir Menzies Campbell £10,346.
  • Michael (now Lord) Howard painting which cost £9,400


I'm sure the money could have been better spent but to make it look like one party is to blame is an obvious poor attempt to get the focus of attention away from Nuttall's crass blunder. Actually blunder doesn't cover it, monumental crass fcuk up is better.

The truth is always better than fiction.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Friday, 16 December 2016

Brexit trade deal could take 10 years


In my opinion it will be 20 years before we've finished dealing with Brexit fallout.  The UKs ambassador thinks it could take 10 years to get a trade deal sorted out. Theresa May however hasn't got a clue and successfully answers every question that wasn't asked and avoids the one that was asked.


Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador.

"Mayhem" (Theresa May) yet again successfully avoids answering the very clear and succinct question put to her. 






Links
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Was the Falkands War Thatchers Gamble to save her skin

Whilst I take absolutely nothing away from British forces and their amazing undertaking to recapture the Falkland Islands. I still think it was nothing more than a gamble by Margaret Thatcher to secure another term as prime minister.

At the time she was one of the most unpopular prime ministers ever and was heading for a massive defeat, there were four major things that happened.
  1. The British ignored things that the Argentinian's were saying in the UN or hints that they were making about military action.
  2. John Nott withdrew the Endeavor which was the support ship for the Falklands.
  3. The British government brought in the British nationality act of 1981 which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland islanders with the more limited version.
  4. Intelligence had been received that the Argentinian's might attempt something and Thatcher was advised to dispatch a small military force but refused to do so.
All these things lead the Argentinians to believe that Britain would not fight for the Falklands.

Also at the time, the Conservative government was cutting the military to shreds the 1981 defence white paper (titled "The UK Defence Programme: The Way Forward" Cmnd 8288) was a major review of the United Kingdom's defence policy brought about by the Conservative government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (Link)
"It was ultimately judged however to have been extremely detrimental to the Defense of the Realm, being among other things widely considered to have been one of the contributing factors that led to the outbreak of the Falklands War."

In fact, the defence cuts and the four points above ended up costing the country billions and continue to do so.

My only assumption of this, knowing that she was a very intelligent lady, was that she knew exactly what she was doing. She led Britain into a war to secure her Premiership, as we know she went from being the most unpopular p.m. to being the most popular after the war.

In retrospect in 1976 James Callaghan had sent a small military force to the South Atlantic called Operation Journeyman when Argentina landed 50 men on an unoccupied southern Thule that belonged to the South Sandwich Islands. "The flotilla led by nuclear-powered submarine HMS Dreadnaught was thought to have deterred a 1977 invasion."

We also have to take into account that the government had tried on two separate occasions to negotiate the Falklands away but had been thwarted by the islanders.

I actually had a conversation with Sandy Woodward who was Rear Admiral of the task force, he was a member of the Sailing Club I was also a member of. One of the few things he did say was that "it was very close at times, could have been a different story."

The Falklands War - The Untold Story (Full Documentary)

The telling quote in the documentary Major General Julian Thompson 
"there was a political need for a victory"
"Though you don't mind dying for queen and country you certainly don't contemplate dying for politicians"
"I shall win the war for these buggers and then I shall go."  


SOAPBOX SUMMARY
So on the whole the Conservative government had tried twice to negotiate the Falklands away, they withdrew the endeavour the support ship of the Falklands. They changed the citizenship of the Falkland islanders by bringing in the British nationality act of 1981 which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland islanders with the more limited version and Thatcher refused to dispatch a limited force when they received intelligence that the Argentinian's might attempt something. If you were trying to get the Argentinian's to try something you couldn't have done much more.

Thatcher was also a most unpopular and failing PM, having increased unemployment by 50% to 3 million, after promising to reduce it during the 1979 election campaign and she badly needed something to save her.

In my opinion, the above makes Thatcher responsible for the deaths of all 255 of the valiant servicemen that went and solved a problem either caused by her governments total incompetence or created to save her as PM.

Funnily enough, the two carriers were being sold off due to the defence cuts mentioned above. Had Argentina waited for 8 months, the UK wouldn't have had any carriers and would have been unable to recover the Falklands militarily.

Those defence cuts cost the country billions more than they would have saved and continue to cost the country due to the additional military presence now required constantly at the Falklands.

Nott didn't resign because he was right, it was because either he had royally fcuked up or he fell on the sword because Thatcher fcuked up and someone else needed to take the blame.

No one person is entirely to blame as I've no doubt they all sat around a table and agreed it. However, the Thatcher Government is wholly to blame and I'd love to see someone argue against that statement.



LINKS
The Guardian - How Margaret Thatcher's Falklands gamble paid off
Wikipedia - Events leading to the Falklands War
Wikipedia - Margaret Thatcher
Telegraph - Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War: doubts and fears in a far-off conflict that changed Britain
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3158/Margaret-Thatcher-19252013.aspx
Mercopress - Falklands war, a turning point for Margaret Thatcher’s image and political fortunes
The Iron Lady - THATCHER'S WAR - THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
Sky - Margaret Thatcher: Falklands Was Defining
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/1983-the-biggest-myth-in-labour-party-history/
Wikipedia - 1981 Defence White Paper
Wikipedia - Operation Journeyman
Voting Intention 1979-1983
bbc.co.uk - Secret Falklands fleet revealed
Guardian - UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty
Guardian - Thatcher was ready for Falkland Islands deal, National Archives papers show
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands

Someone with a similar opinion to mine
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nouud/why_did_margaret_thatcher_want_the_falklands_so/
http://alienatedleft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/thatchers-falklands-war-got-hundreds.html



[Document was updated: 05/01/19]


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)