Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineSquattingMarmot
Inquiring Mind
Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 418
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Pax Romana vs Pax Americana
    #1938136 - 09/21/03 04:51 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

All empires fall. Unfortunately its only a matter of time until America joins them.

Pax Romana vs Pax Americana: Contrasting Strategies of Imperial Managment
By Walden Bello

After its successful invasion of Iraq, the US appears to be at the height of its power. One can understand why many feel the US is supreme and omnipotent. Indeed, this is precisely what Washington wants the world to think.

No doubt, the US is very powerful militarily. There is good reason to think, however, that it is overextended. In fact, the main strategic result of the occupation of Iraq is to worsen this condition of overextension.

Overextension

Overextension refers to a mismatch between goals and means, with means referring not only to military resources but to political and ideological ones as well. Under the reigning neoconservatives, Washington's goal is to achieve overwhelming military dominance over any rival or coalition of rivals. This quest for even greater global dominance, however, inevitably generates opposition, and it is in this resistance that we see the roots of overextension. Overextension is relative?an overextended power may in fact be in a worse condition even with a significant increase in its military power if resistance to its power increases by an even greater degree.

This point may sound surreal after the massive firepower that we witnessed on television night after night over the last month. But consider the following and ask whether they are not signs of overreach;

the failure to consolidate a pro-US regime in Afghanistan outside of Kabul;
the inability of a key ally, Israel, to quell, even with Washington?s unrestricted support, the Palestinian people?s uprising;
the inflaming of Arab and Muslim sentiment in the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, resulting in massive ideological gains for Islamic fundamentalists--which was what Osama bin Laden had been hoping for in the first place;
the collapse of the Cold War "Atlantic Alliance" and the emergence of a new countervailing alliance, with Germany and France at the center of it;
the forging of a powerful global civil society movement against US unilateralism, militarism, and economic hegemony, the most recent significant expression of which is the anti-war movement;
the loss of legitimacy of Washington?s foreign policy and global military presence, with its global leadership now widely viewed, even among its allies, as imperial domination;
the emergence of a powerful anti-American movement in South Korea, which is the forward point of the US military presence in East Asia;
the coming to power of anti-neoliberal, anti-US movements in Washington?s own backyard---Brazil, Venezuela, and Ecuador?as the Bush admnistration is preoccupied with the Middle East;
an increasingly negative impact of militarism on the economy, as US military spending becomes dependent on deficit spending, and deficit spending becomes more and more dependent on financing from foreign sources, creating more stresses and strains within an economy that is already in the grip of deflation.
Just a few days after its military victory over a fourth-rate power, we are already witnessing the political quicksand that the Americans have stepped into in Iraq, as fundamentalist Islamic political currents among the majority Shiites appear to be the political inheritors of the deposing of Saddam Hussein. If a stable pro-US order in the Middle East is Washington's goal, then that is nowhere in sight. What is likely instead is greater instability that will tempt Washington to employ more military power and deploy more military units, leading to a spiral of violence from which there is no easy exit.

Pax Romana versus Pax Americana

Nearly three millennia ago, another empire confronted the same problem of overextension. Its solution enabled it to last 700 years. The Roman solution was not just or even principally military in character. The Romans realized that an important component of successful imperial domination was consensus among the dominated of the "rightness" of the Roman order. As sociologist Michael Mann notes in his classic Sources of Social Power, the extension of Roman citizenship to ruling groups and non-slave peoples throughout the empire was the political breakthrough that won the mass allegiance among the nations dominated by the Romans. Political citizenship combined with the vision of the empire providing peace and prosperity for all to create that intangible but essential moral element called legitimacy.

Needless to say, extension of citizenship plays no role in the US imperial order. In fact, US citizenship is jealously reserved for a very tiny minority of the world's population, entry into whose territory is tightly controlled. Subordinate populations are not to be integrated but kept in check either by force or the threat of the use of force or by a system of global or regional rules and institutions--the World Trade Organization, the Bretton Woods system, NATO--that are increasingly blatantly manipulated to serve the interests of the imperial center.

Though extension of universal citizenship was never a tool in the American imperial arsenal, during its struggle with communism in the post-World War II period Washington did come up with a political formula to legitimize its global reach. The two elements of this formula were multilateralism as a system of global governance and liberal democracy.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, there were, in fact, widespread expectations of a modern-day version of Pax Romana. There was hope in liberal circles that the US would use its sole superpower status to undergird a multilateral order that would institutionalize its hegemony but assure an Augustan peace globally. That was the path of economic globalization and multilateral governance. That was the path eliminated by George W. Bush's unilateralism.

As Frances Fitzgerald observed in Fire in the Lake, the promise of extending liberal democracy was a very powerful ideal that accompanied American arms during the Cold War. Today, however, Washington or Westminster-type liberal democracy is in trouble throughout the developing world, where it has been reduced to providing a fa?ade for oligarchic rule, as in the Philippines, pre-Musharraf Pakistan, and throughout Latin America. In fact, liberal democracy in America has become both less democratic and less liberal. Certainly, few in the developing world see a system fueled and corrupted by corporate money as a model.

Recovery of the moral vision needed to create consensus for US hegemony will be extremely difficult. Indeed, the thinking in Washington these days is that the most effective consensus builder is the threat of the use of force. Moreover, despite their talk about imposing democracy in the Arab world, the main aim of influential neoconservative writers like Robert Kaplan, Robert Kagan, and Charles Krauthammer is transparent: the manipulation of liberal democratic mechanisms to create pluralistic competition that would destroy Arab unity. Bringing democracy to the Arabs is not even an afterthought as a slogan that is uttered tongue in cheek.

The Bush people are not interested in creating a new Pax Romana. What they want is a Pax Americana where most of the subordinate populations like the Arabs are kept in check by a healthy respect for lethal American power, while the loyalty of other groups such as the Philippine government is purchased with the promise of cash. With no moral vision to bind the global majority to the imperial center, this mode of imperial management can only inspire one thing: resistance.

Challenges to the Empire

The present in Afghanistan is likely to be the future in Iraq?that is, an inability to consolidate a stable political order, much less a truly representative and democratic one.

The combination of their policies of internal repression and their failure to come to the aid of the Palestinians and the Iraqis is likely to put the Arab regimes allied to the US?the most noteworthy of which are the governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt?in an even more precarious position with respect to the Arab masses. A strengthening of political Islam is a likely result, and Islamic groups are likely to either come to power or be serious contenders for power in many of these countries. Ironically, a democratic opening up of the political systems in these countries?which Washington is said to be desirous of?is likely to lead to this outcome, even in Iraq, where the radical stream of Shiite Islamic politics is dominant. The same boost to Islamic groups is likely to be the result in the rest of the Muslim world, especially in two places considered extremely strategic by the US: Pakistan and Indonesia.

Like Washington's security, Israel?s security, the enhancement of which has been a primordial objective of neo-conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol, will be compromised even further. This, as well as the bigger frustration of failing to create a stable political base for American hegemony via formal democratic mechanisms, will lead the US to contemplate an unpalatable choice: withdraw or impose direct colonial rule. It will, however, try not to face this choice as long as possible and continue to pour more money and resources to unworkable political arrangements.

At the same time, local variants of the new global civil society movement for peace and against corporate-driven globalization will achieve power or threaten to come to power in other parts of the world, particularly in Latin America. The examples of Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela will become more attractive as neoliberal economics becomes even more discredited in the context of prolonged economic stagnation at the national, regional, and global level.

With the US increasingly seen as a universal threat and with their economic interests increasingly at odds with Washington, France, Germany, Russia, and China will consolidate the balancing coalition that emerged during the Iraq crisis. Some of the more weighty developing countries, like Brazil, India, and South Korea, might eventually join this formation. This balancing coalition is likely to be a permanent fixture, though its members may change.

One consequence of this diplomatic alliance will be closer coordination in military matters. Indeed, the formation of a European Defense Force distinct from NATO is likely. Another will be increased military spending, arms buildups, and arms research by members of the balancing coalition, whether separately or in cooperation with one another. Still another will be greater economic and technological cooperation to create the economic infrastructure for protracted military competition. Ironically, Washington?s crusade to monopolize weapons of mass destruction will lead to greater investment in the development of such weapons among its big country rivals, while not stopping their development by smaller countries or by non-state actors.

Global economic stagnation and US unilateralism will lead to a further weakening of the IMF and WTO and a strengthening of trends towards protectionism and regionalism. Regional economic arrangements, combining trade preferences, capital controls, and technological cooperation will become even more attractive in opposition to both multilateral free trade arrangements and bilateral trade deals with the US and the EU. Trade wars will become more frequent and more destabilizing.

One actor will be central in all this: China. As the American economy is mired in stagnation and Washington is overextended military and politically, China will grow in relative strength. The unilateralists will grow more and more preoccupied with China?s growing strength and will sharpen their political and ideological competition with Beijing. At the same time, their options will continue to be limited given Wall Street?s increasing financial stakes in China, American corporations? increasing dependence on investment in that country, and the US consumers? escalating reliance on imports from China, from low-tech commodities to high-tech goods. Washington will not find an easy exit from its Chinese conundrum.

Finally?and ironically, given recent events?the UN will enjoy a new lease on life, as countries realize that its ability to grant or withhold legitimacy remains an important tool in international realpolitik. The role of the UN as a mechanism for isolating the US will be enhanced, and Washington is likely to respond with even more vituperation and threats to cut off funding, though it will not be able to boycott the organization.

Like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy prior to the Second World War, the US is likely to be more and more isolated in the community of nations while retaining the immense power to plunge that community into disorder.

One thing is certain: if the Romans were around today, they would come up with one conclusion: this is no way to manage an empire.



*Walden Bello is the Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, and professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines.



--------------------
"In the United States anybody can be president. Thats the problem."

"The gray-haired douche bag, Barbara Bush, has a slogan: "Encourage your child to read every day." What she should be is encouraging children to question what they read every day."

- George Carlin


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: SquattingMarmot]
    #1938428 - 09/21/03 07:21 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

blah blah blah.  :thumbdown:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: ]
    #1938866 - 09/21/03 10:42 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

The pax romana ended for one reason, that is beacuse their throne was inheired for the most part and quite a few emporer where clinically retarded or mentally unstable. Also the emperors guards could kill a good leader and then sell the throne for a large sum of money. Over extension occured later.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: d33p]
    #1938878 - 09/21/03 10:48 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Actually, the throne wasn't inherited for the most part. For the most part, generals would lead their armies into Rome and kill the previous emperor, and crown themself the new emperor. This is an object lesson in what happens when you put too much power in the military.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: silversoul7]
    #1938881 - 09/21/03 10:49 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

who else has power but the military???  :smirk:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: ]
    #1938887 - 09/21/03 10:50 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Well, obviously someone does, since we've never had a coup de'tat in America, unless you count the JFK assassination.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: silversoul7]
    #1938901 - 09/21/03 10:53 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

"political power comes from the end of a gun"

-mao.

he was right about that one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: ]
    #1938933 - 09/21/03 11:02 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I think one should use the term "pax" loosley when talking about America :tongue:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: silversoul7]
    #1938934 - 09/21/03 11:03 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I was taking about the pax romana which was their 200 years of peace so its unlikey a major battle determined a new emperor. And im not sure about the transfering of the throne in roman times but im sure those mentally retarded emporers didnt become the leader by leading a succesfull millitary campaign.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: d33p]
    #1938941 - 09/21/03 11:06 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Actually, the term "Pax Romana" is misleading. It is called that because there were very few foreign wars during that time. Because of that fact, many generals turned their attention away from the borders and instead turned against Rome, seeking power for themselves. The average reign of an emperor during this time was very short, and very few of them died of natural causes.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: d33p]
    #1938953 - 09/21/03 11:11 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

d33p said:
I was taking about the pax romana which was their 200 years of peace




I know, i was just saying we never have had 20 tears of peace...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: domite]
    #1938956 - 09/21/03 11:12 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

we've never had 20 years of peace?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: ]
    #1938960 - 09/21/03 11:15 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

no, 20 TEARS of peace :tongue:

i meant to say 200 years...

and im not sure about 20 years, perhaps it hinges on the definition of peace?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: silversoul7]
    #1939018 - 09/21/03 11:34 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

This is how i understood the pax romana went altho i could be wrong as i learned this quite a while ago.

Nerva: died of natural causes in 98 AD.

Trajan: died of a stroke while on a military campaign in the eastern provinces

Hadrian: died of natural causes after appointing Antoninus Pious as his successor

Antoninus Pious: died after eating some bad cheese

Marcus Aurelius: died after taking too much opium to kill the pain of a battle wound

Commodus: he was assassinated by a group of conspirators in 192 AD but that was cuz he turned into a crazy mofo

this is where the pax romana becomes shakey. Some say it ended here but anyway many of the Severans like Caracalla and Elagabalus are remembered as perverted monsters but they ruled untill the pax romana ended. It seems to be there was realative peace altho the periods between the emperors could have carried violence.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: silversoul7]
    #1939033 - 09/21/03 11:39 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

silversoul7 writes:

Actually, the term "Pax Romana" is misleading. It is called that because there were very few foreign wars during that time. Because of that fact, many generals turned their attention away from the borders and instead turned against Rome, seeking power for themselves.

Absolutely correct, and a very astute observation. Are you a student of ancient Rome, perchance?

Let me take this thread completely off topic for just a single post -- then the rest of you can get back to thrashing it out.

If you are interested in REPUBLICAN Rome (rather than the IMPERIAL Rome to which silversoul7 alludes), I can highly recommend a series of six historical novels by Collen McCullough. The first in the series is "The First Man in Rome", the last is "The October Horse". The books cover Republican Rome from the time of the rise of Gaius Marius to the beginnings of the rise of Caesar Augustus. The books shed light on Gaius Marius, Cornelius Sulla, Gaius Julius Caesar, Spartacus, Pompeius Magnus, Publius Clodius, Cato, Cicero, Mithridates, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony and more.

Though presented as fiction, the storyline (and her descriptions of historical events) hews extremely closely to historical events. Her scholarship is impeccable, yet the books remain eminently readable. I believe that by the time you have finished, you will have a very solid grounding in that period of Roman history -- perhaps even rivalling that of many third-year history major undergrads. This is not dry lecture material -- it is ancient Rome brought to life. You feel for the characters.

In my half century on this sorry globe of ours, I have read literally thousands of books -- probably close to five thousand by now, maybe even more. This series of six novels is right at the top of my list of recommended reading. They are absolutely fascinating. Pick up a copy of "The First Man in Rome" -- I guarantee you won't regret it.

Oh, and, she mentions several times the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms -- probably Psilocybe Semilanceata, perhaps Amanita muscaria though her description of "dried blackened mushrooms" leads me to believe she is referring to P. semilanceata.

We now resume our regular programming.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 2 days
Re: Pax Romana vs Pax Americana [Re: SquattingMarmot]
    #1941015 - 09/22/03 04:08 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Interesting read!

This article outlines some of the ways in which the US is over extending.
Link

Federal Spending Threatens Our Security
by Jacob G. Hornberger, September 17, 2003


As is widely known, the federal spigots in foreign affairs, as in domestic affairs, are now wide open: hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent in Iraq, not to mention the billions of dollars in foreign aid that will be sent to dozens of foreign governments, all under the purported rationale of improving life in those countries.

Setting aside the fact that historically foreign aid has failed to improve the economic well-being of people in the recipient nations, what all too many Americans are blocking out of their minds, unfortunately, is the threat that the U.S. government's uncontrolled spending binge poses to our own economic security.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the current fiscal year, which ends this month, will end up with a $401 billion deficit. The original projection for next year was that federal spending would exceed income by $480 billion; the anticipated spending in Iraq has raised that projection to at least $540 billion.

Like it or not, federal spending must ultimately be paid for by the American people, either now ? in the form of income taxation ? or by adding to the federal government?s ever-growing mountain of national debt ($6.8 trillion and growing), to be paid later either through income taxation or the more likely means of central-bank debasement of the currency (i.e., inflation). Given the unlikelihood that the Bush administration will raise taxes prior to the 2004 elections, it is a virtual certainty that most of the new spending will be financed by new debt, to be paid off later, most likely through inflation.

Those who think that passing the debt to later generations poses no economic cost to current generations ignore the adverse impact of diverting such large amounts of private capital into unproductive government spending. Rising levels of private capital are the key to increased productivity, which in turn forms the basis for real (i.e., noninflationary) increases in wages. Thus, massive government spending, whether financed through taxation or debt, ultimately means a lower standard of living for society.

What Americans might also find disconcerting is the amount of U.S. debt that is held by foreigners ? $1.347 trillion, more than one-third of the total. According to an article entitled U.S. Debt to Asia Swelling, published in the September 12 issue of the Washington Post, Japan now owns $440 billion in U.S. securities, equal to more than one-tenth of all outstanding issues. China, the second-largest buyer of U.S. securities, now owns more than $122 billion, while five other Asian countries ? Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand ? own more than $166 billion.

As Joan Zheng, formerly of the central bank of China (i.e., China?s Federal Reserve System) and now an economist at J.P. Morgan in Hong Kong, put it, ?The U.S. dollar is now at the mercy of Asian governments.? She might have added, "Thanks to the profligate spending habits of U.S. officials."

Americans had better hope that foreigners never decide to dump all that debt onto the market at once, because it would undoubtedly produce an extremely ugly financial and economic crisis whose magnitude is impossible to predict. Given the propensity of Washington officials to make enemies overseas, the threat of such a crisis now hangs over our nation like a sword of Damocles.

The American people might well come to rue the day they embraced the ?Don?t worry. Be happy. Trust us? mantra of their elected and appointed federal officials, who undoubtedly would view a severe economic emergency as just another opportunity to further expand their powers over the American people. We could easily imagine them repeating the mantra that federal officials employed after monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve caused the 1929 stock-market crash and the Great Depression: ?America?s free-enterprise system has failed. Entrust us with more power so we can get you out of the crisis.?

It would behoove the American people to reject the notion of blind trust in government, at least with respect to economic matters, long before such a crisis can befall us. Americans would do well to finally take to heart the admonition of our Founding Fathers: that the greatest threat both to our liberty and security lies not with some foreign enemy but rather with our own government, which is precisely why the Framers designed the Constitution with the aim of protecting us from it.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Isolationism vs. Interventionism when it comes to foreign policy
( 1 2 3 all )
RandalFlagg
3,000 41 07/16/07 02:57 PM
by d33p
* Handguns vs. Rifles
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Tao 3,696 74 03/19/04 01:14 AM
by Mushmonkey
* Warmonger vs. Peacenik
( 1 2 all )
adrug 1,281 38 04/06/03 05:35 AM
by Anonymous
* 9/11 vs. car accidents vs. gangs
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,027 24 03/21/12 01:25 PM
by noblebrown
* Burkha Vs Bikini lonestar2004 908 14 06/01/05 05:49 PM
by The_Red_Crayon
* Liberal vs. Conservative silversoul7 903 4 09/19/04 10:34 PM
by RandalFlagg
* american protocal vs. purge Mitchnast 273 0 10/15/03 10:33 AM
by Mitchnast
* Beheadings vs. Bombings
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Swami 2,413 94 09/26/04 07:06 AM
by qwon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,051 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.106 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.