World peace

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #26
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,639
8,825
Also, when you look at the connections between the Bush family and companies like Halliburton, etc, it just gives me reason to pause and wonder.
This is not a very good argument.
  1. Haliburton is not an arms dealer.
  2. The private military contractor arm of Haliburton, KBR, was spun off a decade ago.
  3. Even when it was part of Halburton,it was less than 10% of their business.
Your argument seems to be to collect the things you don't like - war, Haliburton. the Bush family, arms dealers - and declare that there must be some relation between them.

Russ is right that the Pax Americana is one of the most peaceful times in history. If you look at the Wikipedia list, you will see "wars" that don't seem like wars (because the regular wars no longer exist, at least not the way they used to), like the Mexican Drug War. And for those who think it should be a war, why not consider organized crime in the US also a "war"? It had a comparable fatality rate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #27
419
185
@Vanadium 50
While it is true that I don't possess much sympathy in my heart for the aforementioned, I didn't really 'declare' anything.
I'm a skeptic, and I'm even skeptic of skeptics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
Some interesting reading there, and while there are some things that are allegations, they have pled guilty to bribery and destruction of evidence, And when the CEO is also the US vice president... I don't put it beyond them to do some backhanded deals.
 
  • #28
russ_watters
Mentor
19,932
6,406
Some interesting reading there, and while there are some things that are allegations, they have pled guilty to bribery and destruction of evidence....
None of which has anything to do with profiting from arms trade/war.
And when the CEO is also the US vice president... I don't put it beyond them to do some backhanded deals..
Which, again, you have no evidence for and even if there were, they'd have little or nothing to do with weapons trade/war.

And:
While I of course no conclusive evidence weapons companies are fomenting wars, it would be hard to imagine them being very much against it either, and have you ever seen any of their executives rallying for peace?
Sure, and by that logic, since I have never seen Tim Cook at a peace rally either, we should assume Apple is secretly profiting from war. :rolleyes:

C'mon, this isn't even conspiracy theory, it is just fantasy.
 
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
19,932
6,406
This is not a very good argument.
  1. Haliburton is not an arms dealer.
  2. The private military contractor arm of Haliburton, KBR, was spun off a decade ago.
  3. Even when it was part of Halburton,it was less than 10% of their business.
Not that I think it would matter much to this discussion, but....
4. My read of the wiki for KBR says they are an engineering/construction company, not a weapons company. Their bread and butter may be military construction contracting, but heck, most significant (and many insignificant) engineering companies have done at least some government/military work, including both I've worked for.

And we're really getting off track here. Again, (more for Rx7Man and several others), war is way down and currently the US is playing very little role in wars in the world - though it has in the past 13 years played a more significant role in what is considered "wartime" but bears little relation to previous "wars" in scope (it was just long). And even then, I'm not sure how this got to be about the US, but if you want to blame the US for selling weapons, you should at least also give us credit for causing them to be used far, far less than ever before in Western history.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
419
185
Profiting from war can be less direct than selling arms... Seems like Halliburton had been awarded some significant restoration projects in the gulf

Have you read anything from John Perkins? He describes lots of underhanded deals (in peacetime). Some people say his book is completely fictional...

It's all a chess game, and the big players are looking 8 moves ahead.
 
  • #31
Choppy
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
4,606
1,722
I was wondering how much it would take to bring about world peace and started to look up some facts, to me it seems impossible with all these countries in conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
It's obvious that there's no simple solution. There may not even be a complex one.

But I think that if there is, at its heart you need to find a way to convince people not to take up arms against each other. Wars occur because for whatever reason people collectively make a decision to use force or violence against others to achieve a specific goal.

In some cases that decision arises because the combatants have very little choice in the matter. You have (sometimes very young) people who have no education, no means of earning a living (and yet living in proximity to those who do), and no means to escape their circumstances. For them taking up arms is a means of survival. So to me, it would seem the most effective way to combat these circumstance is through economic and social means. I don't mean free handouts. I mean figuring out how to provide better options to those who don't have any. This is not an easy problem.

In some cases that decision arises because the combatants choose to (or are forced to) accept specific religious ideas. Some people are brought up with notions repeatedly drilled into their heads and chastised for questioning them. This life is temporary, or transitory. There are all-powerful deities (or deity). Those who do not follow that deity's commandments are doomed to suffer for eternity. When someone embraces such ideas, it opens the door to other more toxic ideas - that one group has a kind of moral authority over another,or that an individual can avoid responsibility for lethal actions, or that the decision to take up arms is mandated by scripture that cannot be questioned. This is another problem that is not easy to solve because as much as one might vilify religion, it also provides comfort in times of grief, it brings communities together, it permeates and even defines culture, it provides people with a sense of purpose, and it can steer people away from other undesirable behaviours. Because these are ideas they have to be challenged in the intellectual arena. I look at the Richard Dawkins', Sam Harris', Christopher Hitchens' of the world and though I may not agree with everything they say, I think they're on to something. But how do you debate with someone who does the intellectual equivalent of putting his hands on his ears and sings "la la la la!"

Building on those points you have social pressure. Some people do have a choice in the matter, but are subject to all sorts of pressures:
  1. A young man wants to prove himself to the world. (Not to exclude women from this either, but in general I don't think women face the same pressures as men do when it comes to self-definition.)
  2. Taking up arms to defend ones country, ideals, social group, etc. is reinforced positively within that group.
  3. When all of your friends take up machine guns do you really want to be the guy who refuses?
  4. Military recruitment videos are not designed to look uncool.
Solving this means taking a hard look at social and cultural pressures, and again these aren't black and white. A country needs to have an armed forces for many reasons. And sometimes the army with its rigid hierarchy and discipline, is a good place for people who need that kind of structure.

And then there is this idea of population pressure that suggests to an extent war is biological in nature and based on limited resources. I don't know how valid it is when you factor sentient decision making into the mix, but there's only so much oil in the world, only so much food, only so much real estate, etc. What separates that "haves" and the "have nots" is often defined by who can put up the bigger fight. Solving this one involves effectively mitigating those pressures.

And you can't forget the "crazy" factor. Some people actually ARE psychopathic or sociopathic. It's natural to assume and I think it holds true for the vast majority of people, that peace is the default state, that in absence of a specific cause we would all be peaceful. But there are some people for whom I'm not sure this is the case. That part of the brain that says "killing is bad" is somehow not functioning the way that it does in the rest of the population. Though rare, we have no guarantees that such people won't rise to positions of power and influence. I have no idea how to deal with this factor - but it probably starts with understanding.

Will we ever get there? I don't know.

But there's value in trying.
 
  • Like
Likes wolram, Sophia, HossamCFD and 1 other person
  • #32
87
568
It's obvious that there's no simple solution. There may not even be a complex one.

But I think that if there is, at its heart you need to find a way to convince people not to take up arms against each other. Wars occur because for whatever reason people collectively make a decision to use force or violence against others to achieve a specific goal.

In some cases that decision arises because the combatants have very little choice in the matter. You have (sometimes very young) people who have no education, no means of earning a living (and yet living in proximity to those who do), and no means to escape their circumstances. For them taking up arms is a means of survival. So to me, it would seem the most effective way to combat these circumstance is through economic and social means. I don't mean free handouts. I mean figuring out how to provide better options to those who don't have any. This is not an easy problem.

In some cases that decision arises because the combatants choose to (or are forced to) accept specific religious ideas. Some people are brought up with notions repeatedly drilled into their heads and chastised for questioning them. This life is temporary, or transitory. There are all-powerful deities (or deity). Those who do not follow that deity's commandments are doomed to suffer for eternity. When someone embraces such ideas, it opens the door to other more toxic ideas - that one group has a kind of moral authority over another,or that an individual can avoid responsibility for lethal actions, or that the decision to take up arms is mandated by scripture that cannot be questioned. This is another problem that is not easy to solve because as much as one might vilify religion, it also provides comfort in times of grief, it brings communities together, it permeates and even defines culture, it provides people with a sense of purpose, and it can steer people away from other undesirable behaviours. Because these are ideas they have to be challenged in the intellectual arena. I look at the Richard Dawkins', Sam Harris', Christopher Hitchens' of the world and though I may not agree with everything they say, I think they're on to something. But how do you debate with someone who does the intellectual equivalent of putting his hands on his ears and sings "la la la la!"

Building on those points you have social pressure. Some people do have a choice in the matter, but are subject to all sorts of pressures:
  1. A young man wants to prove himself to the world. (Not to exclude women from this either, but in general I don't think women face the same pressures as men do when it comes to self-definition.)
  2. Taking up arms to defend ones country, ideals, social group, etc. is reinforced positively within that group.
  3. When all of your friends take up machine guns do you really want to be the guy who refuses?
  4. Military recruitment videos are not designed to look uncool.
Solving this means taking a hard look at social and cultural pressures, and again these aren't black and white. A country needs to have an armed forces for many reasons. And sometimes the army with its rigid hierarchy and discipline, is a good place for people who need that kind of structure.

And then there is this idea of population pressure that suggests to an extent war is biological in nature and based on limited resources. I don't know how valid it is when you factor sentient decision making into the mix, but there's only so much oil in the world, only so much food, only so much real estate, etc. What separates that "haves" and the "have nots" is often defined by who can put up the bigger fight. Solving this one involves effectively mitigating those pressures.

And you can't forget the "crazy" factor. Some people actually ARE psychopathic or sociopathic. It's natural to assume and I think it holds true for the vast majority of people, that peace is the default state, that in absence of a specific cause we would all be peaceful. But there are some people for whom I'm not sure this is the case. That part of the brain that says "killing is bad" is somehow not functioning the way that it does in the rest of the population. Though rare, we have no guarantees that such people won't rise to positions of power and influence. I have no idea how to deal with this factor - but it probably starts with understanding.

Will we ever get there? I don't know.

But there's value in trying.
That was a good analysis, Choppy.
 
  • #33
675
319
The Middle East conflicts aren't about religion. They are about wealth. In the Middle East land is wealth, and the war is about land. The Israelis kicked 300,000 peasants off of their land, impoverishing them, and keep the land by force of arms. The descendants of said peasants are trying to get the land and its wealth back. Religion has nothing to do with it.

The other big fuel of the fire is the desire to control/protect the oil supply, which is obviously not about religion. "The Iraq war is largely about oil," wrote Alan Greenspan.

World War II was largely about oil too. The Japanese surprise attack was all about protecting the oil they got from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei.

One of the main objectives of the German invasion of Russia was the Chechnya oil. In my opinion it was the main objective. That's why the key battle was at Stalingrad instead of Moscow. Stalingrad was necessary to protect the army's supply line on the drive to Chechnya. Look at a map. The supply line to Chechnya must turn a corner around the Sea of Azov, and Stalingrad threatens that pinch point.

That's why Chechnya was the only soviet not to break away from Russia. Though they tried hard, fighting a very nasty war. Russia won't let them go. It wants the wealth.

The Viet Nam/France war was about control of the Laotian opium crop. That's why the key battle was in Dien Bien Phu, on the border with Laos. It was all about money.

Ho Chi Minh knew this, so he organized the Viet Nam war to cost the US money. If the US decided that the war could never turn a profit, they would quit. It worked.

Ho got this idea from Alexander Hamilton, who brilliantly invented it during the American war of liberation from England. Hamilton knew that the Bank of England was the true ruler of that nation. So if the Continentals could convince the Bank that the war could not profit, it would be over. It worked back then too.

In Iraq forces have organized around religious figures, but I think that is because the army and government were destroyed by the Coalition of the Willing. Religious leaders were the only leaders remaining and religions the only national institutions capable of organizing resistance to the invasion. So it only appears to be a religious war.

How about the Crusades? You'd think that that would be a religious war. Maybe sometimes, but in one of the crusades the crusaders didn't even try to go to Jerusalem. They went to Constantinople instead because there was more loot there. It worked. They came back with a lot of it.

Sometimes I wonder if there ever really was a religious war. The whole Protestant reformation was about money. The Catholic Church was corrupt to the bone, and people resented having to pay them all that money to a bunch of phonies. The Catholic Church wasn't really a religion, it was a fraudulent multinational corporation and a lot of people knew it. The Thirty Years War was about factions fighting their way out of the grip of this extortion. The Church wanted to keep that wealth flowing in. They got their dupes to fight for them.

The Roman Empire was all about wealth. They didn't even pretend otherwise.

Did you know that the whole purpose of NATO is to protect the oil supply? That's what their charter reads. It's all about wealth. In this case it is about defending the source of wealth, not stealing it. But about wealth, nevertheless.
 
  • Like
Likes Rx7man
  • #34
675
319
http://ourworldindata.org/data/war-peace/war-and-peace-before-1945/ [Broken]
http://ourworldindata.org/data/war-peace/war-and-peace-after-1945/ [Broken]

There are a bunch of graphs on the site. I recommend perusing it.
I had no idea the Thirty Years War was that bad. It was worse than World War 1! Amazing.

Europe had a long period of -- well, it wasn't peace, but in those days war was quite limited, almost ritualized. You didn't attack the enemy at night, that kind of thing. There wasn't, err, uh, mass slaughter like now. So there was a lot of war, but it wasn't very destructive. Nothing compared to what we do now.

The barbarian invasions from the steppes were utterly ruthless and evil, but they didn't kill very many people. They won mostly through terrorizing their victims into obedience.

According to that graph most peaceful period is 1460 to 1490. We are at that level now, but we'll have to keep it up for thirty years to tie the record.

There's something funky about that graph, though. It says it is a "fifteen year moving average." Then we should be seeing rounded spikes instead of squared-off ones. That's fishy. Why is the 30-years war spike the same width as 4-year-long WWI? They have a strange idea of a moving average.

What's more, if you look at the graph the Thirty Years is worse than WWI, but if you look at the circles WWI is worse. ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
263
179
The main profit from war is theft, but even that isn't very significant anymore. Most wars are matters of religious/ethnic hate, not profit. Theft and hate are what war has always been about.
Also social and political ideology.
 
  • #36
675
319
What exactly would satisfy you? Do you literally mean precisely zero war? Personally, I don't think that's realistically achievable nor particularly meaningful.
I think zero war is entirely realistic and achievable, and it wouldn't even be that hard. All it would take is the will.

Look at the example of the United States. Back in the colony days there was a small war between Connecticut and New Jersey. Connecticut had a royal charter that its territory went all the way to the Pacific Ocean. If they had had their way, today Connecticut would be a strip of land all the way to Eureka, CA. This strip went through New Jersey, which did not recognize the claim. Connecticutians started to move into Jersey. Jerseyites burned down their cabins and chased them out. It didn't become a full-scale war because still-Dutch New York wouldn't let Connecticutians pass over its land to fight New Jersey. Without a supply line the invasion fizzled.

The other 12 states blockaded Rhode Island to get it to ratify the Constitution. That's an act of war.

Even after the states united, Michigan went to war with Ohio over Toledo. Toledo had mistakenly been built in Michigan. Michigan asserted its legal rights. Ohio wouldn't give. So there was armed conflict. The US gov't gave Michigan its current upper peninsula to settle the claim on Toledo.

Then of course there is the Civil War/War Between the States.

The question is, if war is inevitable, why don't the US states go to war more often? How does the system settle claims without violence? Why is war between the states pretty much unthinkable these days? Why don't states keep large standing armies to defend themselves from other states? Think about it.

It's because there is a working legal system to settle their disputes. They don't need to waste their resources on large standing armies. It would make no sense to have such an army,navy, or air force. The states can settle their conflicts without carrying a big stick.

Then why do nations have big standing armies? It is because no system exists that works to solve disputes peacefully. International politics is anarchy. There is no working international system. So nations often employ threats of violence. Those threats may be implicit or explicit, but they go on constantly. Occasionally there is actual violence: a war, a drone strike, or a plane shot down. You have to use real violence on occasion to "maintain credibility" for your threats.

There are economic sanctions, but they don't work very well. Too many cheaters.

If there were a system that worked to solve disputes peacefully, the nations would use it. They wouldn't waste their resources on large standing armed forces. Such waste would no longer make sense.

The United Nations is not such a system and never will be as long as the great powers have veto power. But it is a step in that direction. Dwight Eisenhower and many others were very enthusiastic about it. It could grow into such a system.

The United Nations has passed many resolutions to end the conflicts in the Middle East. The USA always vetoes them. They prefer the status quo, with Israel holding on to its ill-gotten gains via force of arms.

Nicaragua sued the US in the World Court and won. The US simply ignored the judgement. It preferred to settle the conflict via force of arms.

One thing for sure: as long as the US prefers the status quo and disdains international attempts to make peace, there will be no peace.

How about this: for all of recorded history, global war deaths ran from as little as about 1 per 100,000 population per year during "peacetime" (average of about 2) to 100 per 100,000 per year during "war" (average of about 50). Then starting in the 1990s, the peacetime war deaths rate dropped as low as 0.2 and the "wartime" death rate dropped to about 0.5. In other words, at the height of the worst wars of the past 20 years, the world was four times safer than during any sustained peacetime in previous human history - and compared to other "wartimes", about a hundred times safer.
That blue line is military deaths. We don't have that data from before WWII. You have to use the red line. Then the most peaceful period is 1460-1490.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Rx7man
  • #37
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
...So there was a lot of war, but it wasn't very destructive. Nothing compared to what we do now.
The Carthaginians might argue the point, if their descendants, their city, or their culture still existed in any form.

In 149 BCE, ... a massive Roman army under the command of Scipio Africanus the Younger landed in Africa and began to lay siege to the city. At first, the Carthaginians tried to come to peace with the Romans who announced a series of difficult conditions for them to fulfil. Rome initially demanded hostages and that all the city’s arms be turned over. When all of these demands were fulfilled, Rome then ordered that the city be pulled down and built further inland. At this stage, with their backs to the wall, the Carthaginians had little choice but to fight.

In spite of the superior Roman military power, the city managed to hold out for another three years until finally, in 146 BCE, the defences failed and the Romans poured in. The inhabitants of the city were massacred by the disciplined legions who systematically moved from house to house. Lloyd (1977: 178) suggested that the city may have held up to 200,000 inhabitants while Braudel (2001: 225) put the population at the lower scale of around 100,000 people. Even at this lower end, the slaughter in the city was, however, substantial and probably unprecedented in the European world up to that time. The survivors, possibly numbering anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 people, were sold as slaves. On direct orders from Rome, the city was subsequently set alight and, after ten days of burning, demolished stone by stone. Polybius in his Histories, Book XXXVIII, Chapters 3-11, noted that ‘the destruction of the Carthaginians was immediate and total’ so much so that there were no Carthaginians left to even express their remorse.
So there's that.
 
  • #38
419
185
Another well known brutal conquest was that of the Genghis /Kublai Khan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

According to wiki...
Overall, the Mongol violence and depredations killed up to three-fourths of the population of the Iranian Plateau, possibly 10 to 15 million people.
 
  • #39
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,924
2,235
Then there is the City of Balkh. In 1220/1221, Genghis Khan's army (~100,000) slaughtered the population of Balkh (~400,000) and all the livestock [1]. Apparently, the corpses were left to lions, wolves, vultures and various other scavengers [2].

Herat surrendered, but after 6 months, they revolted, and the population was slaughtered. Kabul and Ghazni were laid waste. Khan later went on the Baghdad where the caliph was executed and the city's population of 200,000 slaughtered [1].

References:
[1] Peter Tomsen, The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and the Failures of the Great Powers, Public Affairs, New York, 2011.
[2] Ata-Malik Juvaini (Author), J.A. Boyle (Editor, Translator), David Morgan (Introduction), Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror (Manchester Medieval Studies), Manchester University Press; Second Edition,1997

I've read a few different accounts, so I have to dig deeper into the subject.

BALKH AND MAZAR-e-SHARIF
https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/cities/afghanistan/balkh.html
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD
  • #40
675
319
The Carthaginians might argue the point, if their descendants, their city, or their culture still existed in any form.



So there's that.

I'm going by that graph. That is, we are measuring death relative to the entire population of the earth. You are noting that death may be concentrated in one place. Of course.
 
  • #41
263
179
As long as you have radical uncompromising religious ideology, unconventional cultural and social practices and radical political ideology. YOU WILL HAVE WAR period. Examples: radical religious beliefs that justify rape and murder of infidels (nonbelievers) and religious beliefs that can be misinterpreted to justify any number of crimes against humanity. Unconventional culture that allows humans to be placed in bondage and treated as sexual slaves legally where the age of consent is 9 years old and arranged marriages of children are allowed, political beliefs that doesn't allow for freedom of expression freedom of belief and even freedom of movement. There are People born into these unfortunate situations ,who are born knowing in their heart and minds that these things are wrong and immoral. They will revolt eventually and they will be slaughtered by those in power. No amount of wishful thinking will ever change these things. The only way to peace is through war, you have to wipe out the minds that can not be changed and educate, govern and nurture the minds that can be.
 
  • #42
675
319
As long as you have radical uncompromising religious ideology, unconventional cultural and social practices and radical political ideology. YOU WILL HAVE WAR period. Examples: radical religious beliefs that justify rape and murder of infidels (nonbelievers) and religious beliefs that can be misinterpreted to justify any number of crimes against humanity. Unconventional culture that allows humans to be placed in bondage and treated as sexual slaves legally where the age of consent is 9 years old and arranged marriages of children are allowed, political beliefs that doesn't allow for freedom of expression freedom of belief and even freedom of movement. There are People born into these unfortunate situations ,who are born knowing in their heart and minds that these things are wrong and immoral. They will revolt eventually and they will be slaughtered by those in power. No amount of wishful thinking will ever change these things. The only way to peace is through war, you have to wipe out the minds that can not be changed and educate, govern and nurture the minds that can be.

I shall refrain from sarcasm.
 
  • #43
263
179
I shall refrain from sarcasm.
Please share this wisdom.
 
  • #44
263
179
One thing for sure: as long as the US prefers the status quo and disdains international attempts to make peace, there will be no peace.
So the US is totally to blame for the absence of world peace. Yadzidi women captured by ISIS would disagree with you, 9 year old girls in Iraq would disagree with you, political prisoners in North Korea would tend to disagree with you.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/is...sis-militants-reveal-horrific-ordeals-n214641

http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Iraq-law-would-allow-9-year-old-girls-to-marry-5319224.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea

Virtually any woman in the Middle east that wants freedom of choice will disagree with you.

This is a world problem not a US problem.

Edit: I admire your optimism , I just do not believe any amount of co-operation on any one country's part will change a thing. Its not realistic to think if the US changes its policy people will change their beliefs and politics.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
9
4
The only way to peace is through war, you have to wipe out the minds that can not be changed and educate, govern and nurture the minds that can be.
I shall refrain from sarcasm.
Please share this wisdom.
Just my guess, but he might be implying, that this is very similar to what Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were thinking back in the day. And that ISIS is probably thinking exactly the same thing right now. (not just them, though)
 
  • Like
Likes Hornbein
  • #46
263
179
Just my guess, but he might be implying, that this is very similar to what Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were thinking back in the day. And that ISIS is probably thinking exactly the same thing right now. (not just them, though)
That's exactly my point, that is why its unrealistic, it would require violating the human rights of the human rights violators, violating the Geneva convention and half a dozen treaties maybe more of every major allied government recognized by the UN. It can't be done peacefully. therefore it cant be done.
 
  • #47
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,880
there's an old adage about roads paved with good intentions...

Problem with benevolent dictators is keeping them benevolent.
 
  • Like
Likes gjonesy

Related Threads on World peace

Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
838
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Top