Page 8 of 41 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 807

Thread: China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

  1. #141
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    THE Philippines' defense and military establishments remain tight-lipped regarding an incident wherein Chinese fighter jets reportedly "buzzed" or flew too close to two aircraft while on a routine patrol over the disputed Spratlys Island in the South China Sea.

    The military is still verifying the report, said Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesman Commodore Miguel Jose Rodriguez, echoing the same statement made by AFP chief General Eduardo Oban when the incident was reported Thursday.
    http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/loc...counter-156639

    Facing the Threat of Piracy, China Starts to Talk Like a Superpower

    On a visit to the U.S. this week, China's top military commander Chen Bingde suggested that the international coalition patrolling the Gulf of Aden and the waters off the coast of Somalia ought to take decisive action against pirate dens on land. So far, the counter-piracy strategy has focused on the pirate "mother-ships," usually retrofitted trawlers that tow little skiffs out into the deep sea. Yet the pirate problem emanating from lawless Somalia cost the global economy over $8.3 billion in 2010.
    http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...#ixzz1N2tqOshM

    (Reuters) - Pakistan said on Saturday it wanted China to build it a naval base, in the latest sign of moves to strengthen ties with Beijing as relations with Washington falter.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74K27T20110521
    Last edited by AdamG; 05-22-2011 at 03:17 AM.
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  2. #142
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default fiddle-dee-dee

    War, war, war...

    A RISING star of the People's Liberation Army has called for China to rediscover its ''military culture'', while challenging unnamed Communist Party leaders for betraying their revolutionary heritage.

    General Liu Yuan displays deep hostility to the United States, says war is a natural extension of economics and politics and claims that ''man cannot survive without killing''.

    His essay, in a friend's book, says ''history is written by blood and slaughter'' and describes the nation-state as ''a power machine made of violence''.
    Chinese urged to put war on pedestal - Sydney Morning Herald - May 23, 2011


    ''Military culture is the oldest and most important wisdom of humanity,'' he writes. ''Without war, where would grand unity come from? Without force, how could fusion of the nation, the race, the culture, the south and the north be achieved?''
    Let's fly the red flag again, says Chinese general - Sydney Morning Herald - May 23, 2011

    ***

    The United States was born through war, reunited by war, and saved from destruction by war. No future generation, however comfortable and affluent, should escape that terrible knowledge.

    What, then, can we do to restore the study of war to its proper place in the life of the American mind? The challenge isn’t just to reform the graduate schools or the professoriate, though that would help. On a deeper level, we need to reexamine the larger forces that have devalued the very idea of military history—of war itself. We must abandon the naive faith that with enough money, education, or good intentions we can change the nature of mankind so that conflict, as if by fiat, becomes a thing of the past. In the end, the study of war reminds us that we will never be gods. We will always just be men, it tells us. Some men will always prefer war to peace; and other men, we who have learned from the past, have a moral obligation to stop them.
    Why Study War? - Victor Davis Hanson - 2007

    ***

    Scarlett: Fiddle-dee-dee. War, war, war; this war talk's spoiling all the fun at every party this spring. I get so bored I could scream. Besides... there isn't going to be any war.
    Brent Tarleton: Not going to be any war?
    Stuart Tarleton: Why, honey, of course there's gonna be a war.
    Scarlett: If either of you boys says "war" just once again, I'll go in the house and slam the door.
    Brent Tarleton: But Scarlett...
    Stuart Tarleton: Don't you *want* us to have a war?
    [she gets up and walks to the door, to their protestations]
    Scarlett: [relenting] Well... but remember, I warned you.
    Gone with the Wind (1939) - IMDb

  3. #143
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default talk to the hard hand

    Here's my guess for how a Taiwan scenario might play out. If a fracas starts, guys like the jovial General Liu "Power Machine Made Of Violence" Yuan will move to the forefront and Taiwan will be wiped flat in the first 72 hours. No invasion, no negotiation. Then the real fun begins. Curtis LeMay and 'Linebacker II in '64' fans will understand this, I'm sure.

  4. #144
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Would the US allow Taiwan to fold up because of a Mainland attack?

    And would the Communists dare attacking Taiwan given the US business inroads into China?

    Will China's economic progress survive without the US?

    China's economy survives on copycating foreign items and goods and selling it cheap and shoddy.

    If that route is closed, when what happens to China?
    Last edited by Ray; 05-24-2011 at 07:12 AM.

  5. #145
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Boiling Frog?

    JMA,

    I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.

    LawVol posted,

    Have we focused too much on the "war of terror" and thus dropped the ball in the Pacific? Is this issue evidence of our need to pursue a different strategy with respect to terrorism, so we can remember the big picture?
    Our narrow laser like focus on the WOT has been at a detriment to our larger interests, but it isn't that black and white. The WOT remains important, and the WOT is also being waged (intelligently) in the Asia-Pacific region. State powers have always leveraged surrogates, insurgencies and other violent and non-violent movements to further their own goals, so as during the Cold War we need to look under the blanket a little closer to see who all the players are. In my opinion we are intentionally deceiving ourselves now because the truth is too unpleasant to accept.

  6. #146
    Council Member The Cuyahoga Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Yes, they have a plan and we don't.
    Ok, but do they have a good plan?

    Personally, I think that the Chinese government has started buying the same bull it's sellling, that China is going to maintain it's current rate of economic growth for 20-30 years, instead of accepting that once today's youth bulge evaporates in the 2020's, productivity is going to drop off drastically, and the PRC's influence with it.

    Just an 18 y.o.'s perspective, but I think that the CCP is trying to play in the big leagues, when they should be playing small ball, and that centralized policy planning is part of the problem, not the solution.
    Last edited by The Cuyahoga Kid; 06-05-2011 at 09:40 PM.

  7. #147
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cuyahoga Kid View Post
    Ok, but do they have a good plan?

    Personally, I think that the Chinese government has started buying the same bull it's sellling, that China is going to maintain it's current rate of economic growth for 20-30 years, instead of accepting that once today's youth bulge evaporates in the 2020's, productivity is going to drop off drastically, and the PRC's influence with it.

    Just an 18 y.o.'s perspective, but I think that the CCP is trying to play in the big leagues, when they should be playing small ball, and that centralized policy planning is part of the problem, not the solution.
    Agreed from someone who has visited the mainland away from the seaboard a few times and also experienced the CCP local bureaucracy in its unfettered glory.

    Just an example of this in the NYTIMES regarding a much larger CCP project than any 'Battlestar Galactica' drilling platform:

    Plan For China's Water Crisis Spurs Concern

    North China is dying.

    A chronic drought is ravaging farmland. The Gobi Desert is inching south. The Yellow River, the so-called birthplace of Chinese civilization, is so polluted it can no longer supply drinking water. The rapid growth of megacities — 22 million people in Beijing and 12 million in Tianjin alone — has drained underground aquifers that took millenniums to fill.
    Not atypically, the Chinese government has a grand and expensive solution: Divert at least six trillion gallons of water each year hundreds of miles from the other great Chinese river, the Yangtze, to slake the thirst of the north China plain and its 440 million people.

    The engineering feat, called the South-North Water Diversion Project, is China’s most ambitious attempt to subjugate nature. It would be like channeling water from the Mississippi River to meet the drinking needs of Boston, New York and Washington. Its $62 billion price tag is twice that of the Three Gorges Dam, which is the world’s largest hydroelectric project.

    And not unlike that project, which Chinese officials last month admitted had “urgent problems,” the water diversion scheme is increasingly mired in concerns about its cost, its environmental impact and the sacrifices poor people in the provinces are told to make for those in richer cities.

    Three artificial channels from the Yangtze would transport precious water from the south, which itself is increasingly afflicted by droughts; the region is suffering its worst one in 50 years. The project’s human cost is staggering — along the middle route, which starts here in Hubei Province at a gigantic reservoir and snakes 800 miles to Beijing, about 350,000 villagers are being relocated to make way for the canal. Many are being resettled far from their homes and given low-grade farmland; in Hubei, thousands of people have been moved to the grounds of a former prison ...

  8. #148
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Carl, I disagree, to a point, that law of the sea arguments will not stop them. From some things I've read and some China experts I've spoken to, China is quite in tune with legalities. In fact, they tend to predicate their activity on a legal basis. In response to the incidents with the US (EP-3 and USNS Impeccable), China crafted legal arguments. It may have something to do with their "smile campaign" and "peaceful rise" strategy. In any event, a vocal challenge to this interpretation of international law combined with US activity (e.g. port calls to Vietnam, continued surveillance from inside China's EEZ, etc.) may be beneficial. What else can we do?

    Tequila, I've never been to China, but can we really gauge their military by analyzing the CCP? Doesn't their military have more of a free hand vis-a-vis political control than ours? The weather satellite shoot-down comes to mind; the pols over their seemed caught off guard. Can we afford to be wrong?

    We don't need to go toe-to-toe with China to protect our interests. SImply guaranteeing access and freedom of navigation in accordance with international law is sufficient. This is why China's strategy is anti-access and increased sovereignty at the expense of global commons.
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  9. #149
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Tequila, I've never been to China, but can we really gauge their military by analyzing the CCP? Doesn't their military have more of a free hand vis-a-vis political control than ours? The weather satellite shoot-down comes to mind; the pols over their seemed caught off guard. Can we afford to be wrong?
    The CCP maintains absolute control over the military. Frankly I don't buy the idea that the Party leadership did not know about the shootdown. There are factions and politics within the Party leadership, with corresponding factions within the Army. Some are more aggressive than others in the foreign policy realm. There may have been some disagreement between one faction with another over whether the shootdown was the right thing to do, but overall the shootdown fits with a broader CCP move towards reminding the U.S. that China maintains an aggressive deterrence capability.

    That the CCP could force the military to divest itself from its enormous Egypt-like economic empire in the 1990s and early 2000's shows, IMO, who still has control. I agree that the professionalization of the PLA has distanced it from civil society and the CCP to an extent, but they still are under the full control of the Party.

  10. #150
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    John:

    The things you mention will work in the short term, the next few years, if...if we do them with great energy. I am not sure we are doing anything. The Chinese pushed around some of our ships last year and whatever we did didn't stop them from shooting at Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen this year. What have we said about these latest incidents? Nothing much that I am aware of, and if my local paper doesn't make me aware of it then it wasn't strong enough. We have been friends with the Filipinos for a long time and the Vietnamese could do us a lot of good in the future and yet we say nothing. Some actual harsh words and regular port calls to Cam Ranh Bay by strong battle groups would work wonders. Of course the Chinese would scream bloody murder but I doubt they would do much. If we aren't willing to accept squawking we are back to doing nothing.

    Once their navy gets big enough, all bets are off.

    Guaranteeing access and freedom of navigation may require us to go toe to toe with the Chinese someday. Their actions over the last several years suggest it may come to that. Better to do something now thereby postponing it at the least.

    Tequila is right, the CCP controls the military, all of it. I've read though that it is very useful for the CCP to keep people wondering, a clever tactic. They can hint that the peace loving CCP members are doing their best to keep those military savages in line, but they need help. So the CCP diplomats ask that other countries don't do anything that would set the savages off, like say exercising legitimate international rights or reacting to Chinese military provocations. Our elites would be suckers for that argument because it conforms to their pre-conceptions.
    Last edited by carl; 06-07-2011 at 03:58 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  11. #151
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    Can we afford to be wrong?
    John, I forgot about this. We had better play it such a way that we can afford to be wrong, if we can, because we probably will be wrong. That leads to the good old plan around their capabilities and actions rather than their words.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  12. #152
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Family ties

    From another thread (post # 103) (with other links), a link to Let's fly the red flag again, says general:

    BEIJING: A Chinese general has issued a clarion call for the true heirs of the communist revolution to rediscover their fighting spirit and reinvent a rationale for their existence. ''No-surrender, Communist Party members!'' writes General Liu Yuan. ''Let's start again.''

    Pointedly, General Liu distinguishes ''no-surrender'' cadres from unnamed top leaders who have sold out to foreign interests. ''Actually, the party has been repeatedly betrayed by general secretaries, both in and outside the country, recently and in the past,'' Liu writes.

    Chinese leaders since 1989 have successfully presented a disciplined and united public face, in the knowledge that airing their differences could be collectively fatal. General Liu, the political commissar of the general logistics department and the son of a one-time anointed successor to Chairman Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, jokingly acknowledged that his essay breaks all the rules. ... (more in article)
    General Liu Yuan, son of Liu Shaoqi, role in life as a general (political commissar) is to enforce the CCP line. Liu Yuan is an example (2nd generation) of CCP dominance over the PLA - as made by Taquila "The CCP maintains absolute control over the military."

    One would not be too surprised to find "Unrestricted Warfare" (with more than a little "Lawfare") in the Chinese menu. The Political Struggle and the Military Struggle are intertwined - thus, the need for senior political commissar generals such as Liu Yuan.

    Regards

    Mike

  13. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    JMA,

    I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.
    Death by a thousand cuts...

    I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

    None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

    Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

    Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

    I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now.

  14. #154
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Death by a thousand cuts...

    I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

    None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

    Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

    Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

    I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now*.
    Excellent analysis.
    *Probably Spring of 2013.
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  15. #155
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Look for the connected media to start floating "strategic analysis" that question the importance of Taiwan. They will follow it up with stories portraying the Nationalists as corrupt, brutal, untrustworthy and unwilling to accede to reasonable requests by us as a method to defuse a crisis even though we will make guarantees. etc. etc. The upshot is, if it happens, there will be a pr campaign first.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  16. #156
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Russkie "Cry-off" ?

    Cam Ranh Bay - 25 year lease (1979-2004) - terminated 2 May 2002 - open for bidding.

    As to Taiwan, 45 senators tell Obama: Sell Taiwan some F-16s already! (at FP, by Josh Rogin, May 26, 2011) (an interesting Senatorial coalition):

    Unless the United States sells Taiwan some new fighter jets, the military balance between Taiwan and China will continue to spiral out of control to the detriment of both Taiwanese and U.S. security, 45 U.S. senators wrote on Thursday to President Barack Obama.
    ....
    The letter was spearheaded by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and James Inhofe (R-OK), the two senators who resurrected the Senate Taiwan Caucus in January just in time for the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao. But it was also signed by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the two leaders of the brand-new China Working Group, which was created to build ties between Congress and Beijing.
    ....
    But there's little prospect the Obama administration will approve the sale of F-16s to Taiwan anytime soon. Its decision to sell Taiwan $6.2 billion of arms in early 2010 provoked a reaction from Beijing that scuttled U.S.-China military-to-military cooperation for over a year -- and that sale didn't even include any F-16s.
    ....
    Gates told the Chinese that the arms sales would continue, as they have for decades, under the Taiwan Relations Act, a U.S. law that mandates that the United States support Taiwan's self-defense.
    The Taiwan Relations Act has a title referencing JMA's most favorite US Pres:

    Full title - An act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes.
    And indeed, the US will -

    "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States"
    which in DiploSpeak says "we ain't committed to do a damn thing".

    Pres. Carter unilaterally abrogated the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which led to the SCOTUS case of Goldwater v. Carter (Barry lost):

    Holding - The issue at hand, whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with the Republic of China without Senate approval, was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
    The net result is an intentional "strategic ambiguity".

    If the US and China get into an armed conflict over Taiwan, the assets of China and its citizens (including US bonds) are subject to seizure under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:

    The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" that originates "in whole or substantial part outside the United States." It further authorizes the president, after such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat. In the event of an actual attack on the United States, the president can also confiscate property connected with a country, group, or person that aided in the attack.
    We did it to the Germans in both World Wars - but, of course, there has to be a will to use both military and political powers.

    Absent a will to defend Taiwan (legally absent since 1980), Carl's scenario - "Look for the connected media to start floating ...." seems plausible. Does that mean I should be watching MSNBC for clues ?

    Regards

    Mike

  17. #157
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Check out what the connected policy think tanks promulgate too.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  18. #158
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by JMM,

    The net result is an intentional "strategic ambiguity".
    I think this is appropriate at this time, it is somewhat challenging to develop a counter strategy against an ambiguous strategy. We don't need to draw lines in the sand, just be postured to respond in a manner of our chosing based on the situation and our interests.

    If the US and China get into an armed conflict over Taiwan, the assets of China and its citizens (including US bonds) are subject to seizure under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:
    Are economies are so intertwined I don't see this as possible without an unacceptable retaliation. How many Americans live and work in China now? How many assets do U.S. companies have in China?

    Posted by JMA,

    Death by a thousand cuts...

    I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

    None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.
    Rather than the sexy sounding death by a thousand cuts, it two nations maneuvering for strategic advantage. You seem to think that China is getting it right and we're getting it wrong, but the fact that other countries are turning to us because they're concerned about Chinese aggression actually plays in our favor.

    I think we are taking action on the diplomatic front, and I'm not sure what other action you think we need to take at this time? What has China done exactly in your view that requires us to take more action? What action should we take? Cost/benefit?

    China has a lot of internal troubles, their foreign policy is clumsy, and yes they are modernizing their military and becoming more assertive, but I suspect we are also applying the strategy of a thousand cuts against them. This is normal big powers jockeying for influence and advantage, but nothing to date is cause for war. Will there be a war in the future with China? Only time will tell, but I do not believe it something that is predestined. Will there be another war? As the ancient Greeks said, "only the dead have seen the end of war."

  19. #159
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,172

    Default Keep calm Chinese at work

    When I last looked relations between RoC and PRC had relaxed. There is considerable RoC investment in PRC and significantly a large physical presence in PRC - in the hundreds of thousands. Less certain grounds now, I am sure there are student exchanges. Maybe not direct flights. The offshore islands garrisons have shrunk and the "theatre" of conflict has gone - loudspeakers etc.

    Diplomatically there remains some competition, notably over recognition by small countries; to my knowledge in the Caribbean, for example a cricket stadium for Grenada where RoC said no and PRC said yes if you recognise us.

    In their own way the two China's have evolved a relationship that works, each aspires to different national goals, they make money and they don't kill each other.

    Now does RoC need the reassurance - however weak - of US support in a crisis with PRC over some now unforeseen matter?
    davidbfpo

  20. #160
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default We seize; they seize

    We seize - Chinese investment in US: $2 trln and counting (Mar 2, 2011).

    They seize - US investment in China drops 28% (Updated: 2011-05-18):

    US investment from January to April decreased to $1.03 billion and the number of US firms setting up in China also fell by 3.85 percent to 475.
    Net US over China seizures (in case of a shooting war) - 2 trillion +.

    Regards

    Mike

Similar Threads

  1. Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)
    By Beelzebubalicious in forum Europe
    Replies: 1934
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 07:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •