If this is winning...
 

On Apr 18, 8:05 pm, OzOne wrote:
I'd hate to be losing...

At least all Ozzers are not prone to become losers.

Downer defends Australia's stand on Iraq



A victory in Iraq would be a victory against terrorism regardless of
what the British High Commissioner to Australia claims, Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer says.


In an address to the National Press Club on Wednesday diplomat Helen
Liddell said that Iraq was never seen as part of the campaign termed
the "war against terror".


But Mr Downer on Thursday said that was not the opinion held by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair.


"I don't think anyone would deny Tony Blair's very strongly held
views, as the prime minister of Britain, about the importance of
defeating the terrorists in Iraq," Mr Downer told ABC Radio.


"There is absolutely no doubt, I don't think many strategists would
disagree with this, that if there was a western coalition US defeat in
Iraq it would be a massive victory to terrorists, in particular to al-
Qaeda."


The foreign minister said the importance of defeating terrorism was
reinforced overnight when nearly 200 people in Baghdad died in a
series of car bombs.


The overnight attacks were the deadliest in the city since US and
Iraqi forces launched a security crackdown aimed at halting the
country's slide into civil war.


But Mr Downer denied claims that the blasts were caused by Sunni
insurgents.


"That is a massive simplification, and I don't agree with you by the
way, and I have a good deal of experience on this issue and a good
deal of information," Mr Downer said.


"Most suicide bombings, I don't know in this particular case, but most
suicide bombings ... from terrorist attacks in Iraq are conducted by
al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda related organisations."


Mr Downer said the overnight bombings just reinforced Australia's
resolve to keep working towards peace in the area.


"Every time there's a suicide bombing of this kind that we've seen
overnight it just reinforces my determination not to hand over Iraq to
people like that," he said.


Brought to you by AAP

Oz would be happy to hand it over to murderers...no problem.

Joe

If this is winning...
 

Oz would be happy to hand it over to murderers...no problem.

Joe I don't disagree with you at all but I think it would be fair to
point out here that Oz is just trying to vocally stand up for what he
believes in. I don't agree with him but he does seem to have the
intelligence to make a good case and stand his own ground.....even if
we don't agree, got to give the guy props for a good troll or two that
provides a little entertainment.

If this is winning...
 

On Apr 18, 9:45 pm, Bill wrote:
Oz would be happy to hand it over to murderers...no problem.

Joe I don't disagree with you at all but I think it would be fair to
point out here that Oz is just trying to vocally stand up for what he
believes in. I don't agree with him but he does seem to have the
intelligence to make a good case and stand his own ground.....even if
we don't agree, got to give the guy props for a good troll or two that
provides a little entertainment.

Not to worry Bill, I love his rants. Glad he's back.

Joe

If this is winning...
 

Hand it over....You mean after we took it under the pretense that it
was some sort of danger to the US?

Okay it isn't really a danger to the US but does that mean that we
shouldn't be there to help those people who live in a country where
these sort of bombings take place? Most American soldiers who are in
Iraq feel that we are doing the right thing based off what they see in
Iraq, yet I have rarely ever seen the media interviewing these
people. I know a lot of Marines personally and they all tell me how
much good they feel they are doing by being there. I don't trust the
medias interpretation because they are not the ones in Iraq fighting
the war, talking to the people and living it every day. They only tell
the parts of the story they want you to hear to manipulate you into
feeling their side is right and we are doing the wrong thing there but
I always believe a soldier before a reporter. It's sort of a rule for
me. The soldiers say let us stay and finish this, so I say okay.

If this is winning...
 

"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hand it over....You mean after we took it under the pretense that it
was some sort of danger to the US?

Okay it isn't really a danger to the US but does that mean that we
shouldn't be there to help those people who live in a country where
these sort of bombings take place? Most American soldiers who are in
Iraq feel that we are doing the right thing based off what they see in
Iraq, yet I have rarely ever seen the media interviewing these
people. I know a lot of Marines personally and they all tell me how
much good they feel they are doing by being there. I don't trust the
medias interpretation because they are not the ones in Iraq fighting
the war, talking to the people and living it every day. They only tell
the parts of the story they want you to hear to manipulate you into
feeling their side is right and we are doing the wrong thing there but
I always believe a soldier before a reporter. It's sort of a rule for
me. The soldiers say let us stay and finish this, so I say okay.



Yeah, we're doing great things in Iraq.. getting a lot of innocent people
killed because of a war of choice rather than necessity. You really are
deluded it seems.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 18 Apr 2007 22:18:35 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:

Hand it over....You mean after we took it under the pretense that it
was some sort of danger to the US?

Okay it isn't really a danger to the US but does that mean that we
shouldn't be there to help those people who live in a country where
these sort of bombings take place? Most American soldiers who are in
Iraq feel that we are doing the right thing based off what they see in
Iraq, yet I have rarely ever seen the media interviewing these
people. I know a lot of Marines personally and they all tell me how
much good they feel they are doing by being there. I don't trust the
medias interpretation because they are not the ones in Iraq fighting
the war, talking to the people and living it every day. They only tell
the parts of the story they want you to hear to manipulate you into
feeling their side is right and we are doing the wrong thing there but
I always believe a soldier before a reporter. It's sort of a rule for
me. The soldiers say let us stay and finish this, so I say okay.

Gawd Bill...
It never was a danger ,
There were few if any bombings before our invasion,
Soldiers are hardly gonna say they are doing the wrong thing now are
they?
Do your Marine friends have any idea why they were put there in the
first place (no WMD, No terrorist training and Saddam despised Bin
Laden)

Do you believe your Govt?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm



Those pesky facts... darn it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

On Apr 19, 1:52 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message

oups.com...





Hand it over....You mean after we took it under the pretense that it
was some sort of danger to the US?

Okay it isn't really a danger to the US but does that mean that we
shouldn't be there to help those people who live in a country where
these sort of bombings take place? Most American soldiers who are in
Iraq feel that we are doing the right thing based off what they see in
Iraq, yet I have rarely ever seen the media interviewing these
people. I know a lot of Marines personally and they all tell me how
much good they feel they are doing by being there. I don't trust the
medias interpretation because they are not the ones in Iraq fighting
the war, talking to the people and living it every day. They only tell
the parts of the story they want you to hear to manipulate you into
feeling their side is right and we are doing the wrong thing there but
I always believe a soldier before a reporter. It's sort of a rule for
me. The soldiers say let us stay and finish this, so I say okay.

Yeah, we're doing great things in Iraq.. getting a lot of innocent people
killed because of a war of choice rather than necessity. You really are
deluded it seems.

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about the 100's of thousands saddam murdered?

You suggest we leave, and give the country to these mass murders? So
they can re-group and focus on exporting their ability to some place
like San Francisco, LA, ect..ect..ect..again. Al-Queida plays you like
a fiddle Jon.

Joe

If this is winning...
 

On Apr 19, 2:45 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
OzOne wrote in messagenews:pv4e2359h6jr0nh9gldaish2p7tlf42asr@4ax .com...
On 18 Apr 2007 22:18:35 -0700, Bill
scribbled thusly:

Hand it over....You mean after we took it under the pretense that it
was some sort of danger to the US?

Okay it isn't really a danger to the US but does that mean that we
shouldn't be there to help those people who live in a country where
these sort of bombings take place? Most American soldiers who are in
Iraq feel that we are doing the right thing based off what they see in
Iraq, yet I have rarely ever seen the media interviewing these
people. I know a lot of Marines personally and they all tell me how
much good they feel they are doing by being there. I don't trust the
medias interpretation because they are not the ones in Iraq fighting
the war, talking to the people and living it every day. They only tell
the parts of the story they want you to hear to manipulate you into
feeling their side is right and we are doing the wrong thing there but
I always believe a soldier before a reporter. It's sort of a rule for
me. The soldiers say let us stay and finish this, so I say okay.

Gawd Bill...
It never was a danger ,
There were few if any bombings before our invasion,
Soldiers are hardly gonna say they are doing the wrong thing now are
they?
Do your Marine friends have any idea why they were put there in the
first place (no WMD, No terrorist training and Saddam despised Bin
Laden)

Do you believe your Govt?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Those pesky facts... darn it.

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a fact all the other Mideast countries in the region, some that
have more, and some that have less oil are all doing good, and have
created somewhat properious countries. Look at Kuwait for example. In
Iraq the world can see what a Stalinist-type regime can do to people.

It's a fact Saddam Hussein was paying $25,000 to the relatives of
Palestinian suicide bombers. In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on
the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed
out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least
two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 - a bonus
for the families of martyrs, to reward those taking part in the
escalating war against Israel.

It's a fact Saddam lost the gulf war, and when he surrendered, he
promised to allow un-restricted inspections at any time. He did not
follow through on the commitment.

It's a fact he was shooting at American planes in the "NO FLY ZONE"
put in place by the UN to keep him from murdering Iraqi's who did not
support him.

It's a fact we offered Saddam an out. If you can remember (I doubt it)
President Bush said before we went in, that if Saddam and his boys
leave the country we would not go in.

It's a fact, you and OZ blame the USA, and ignore Saddams actions.

Those pesky facts.

Joe







Paul McGeough, reporting from the West Bank, was the only foreign
correspondent in the hall Monday night when a Palestinian official
handed out the checks. McGeough's story in today's Sydney Morning
Herald describes a very hellish twist on the Academy Awards:

If this is winning...
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 19, 1:52 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
Yeah, we're doing great things in Iraq.. getting a lot of innocent people
killed because of a war of choice rather than necessity. You really are
deluded it seems.

What about the 100's of thousands saddam murdered?

Ummm... Saddam is dead dude.

You suggest we leave, and give the country to these mass murders? So
they can re-group and focus on exporting their ability to some place
like San Francisco, LA, ect..ect..ect..again. Al-Queida plays you like
a fiddle Jon.

These mass murders? You mean the ones doing the violence to each other?
They're mostly Iraqis who've hated each other for 100s of years.

Buscho/Cheney/Karl (Actung!) Rove seems to be doing a good job on you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Do you believe your Govt?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Those pesky facts... darn it.

It's a fact all the other Mideast countries in the region, some that
have more, and some that have less oil are all doing good, and have
created somewhat properious countries. Look at Kuwait for example. In
Iraq the world can see what a Stalinist-type regime can do to people.

Kuwait is not "somewhat prosperous. They're bloody rich. In Iraq, we had
Saddam contained and he posed no threat to his neighbors or us. If the
criteria was a bad guy in charge, excepting Bush, we'd be fighting in lots
of places. We aren't. It was a war of choice and now it's a civil war we
helped start.

It's a fact Saddam Hussein was ....

Those pesky facts.

Saddam is dead. You're living in the wrong century.




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

Joe wrote:


Oz would be happy to hand it over to murderers...no problem.

Sort of like jumping from the pot into the fire? Mass destruction from
the air or from the ground?

Cheers
Marty

If this is winning...
 

Nuke them.

It worked pretty well on Japan.

If this is winning...
 

we had
Saddam contained and he posed no threat to his neighbors or us.

So the thret he posed to te average citizen of Iraq is meaningless.
The people he had tortured and murded don't count. Okay I see what
you are thinking. I know he is dead but there are plenty of his
followers still out there trying to do the same thing.

If the
criteria was a bad guy in charge, excepting Bush, we'd be fighting in lots
of places. We aren't. It was a war of choice and now it's a civil war we
helped start.

So because we convince liberals like you to do the right thing in all
of the countries where horrible murdering psychos are in power then we
shouldn't do it in Iraq? Because there is bad everywhere that we
can't get to but maybe this once we can help some people we should say
F it? Your logic here doesn't make sense. And they need a civil
war. We had one largely due to the desire to end slavery. I would
argue that torturing people because they are a differnt religion than
the leaders is is just as good a reason to have a civil war as
slavery.

Saddam is dead. You're living in the wrong century.

Yeah but there are still a lot of people that want to pick up where he
left off. A lot of people that think that the way you get what you
want is to drive a car bomb into a city and blow up a bunch of
children. But we shold let that go, that's America's fault not the
guy who made the bomb or the guy who blew it up or the leadership that
convinces them to do it. Nope it's America's fault, even though this
has been going on there for decades.

If this is winning...
 

"Bill" wrote in message
ps.com...
we had
Saddam contained and he posed no threat to his neighbors or us.

So the thret he posed to te average citizen of Iraq is meaningless.
The people he had tortured and murded don't count. Okay I see what
you are thinking. I know he is dead but there are plenty of his
followers still out there trying to do the same thing.

Actually, there aren't. Most of the violence is due to racial strife not
people wanting Saddam back or do you think they're planning on having him be
resurrected?

If the
criteria was a bad guy in charge, excepting Bush, we'd be fighting in
lots
of places. We aren't. It was a war of choice and now it's a civil war we
helped start.

So because we convince liberals like you to do the right thing in all
of the countries where horrible murdering psychos are in power then we
shouldn't do it in Iraq? Because there is bad everywhere that we

Excuse me, but I don't need convincing and neither should you. We need to
strive to always do the "right thing in all of the countries" with which we
possibly have any influence. We toppled Saddam, for the wrong reasons, but
it's done. Why are we still there? We're the ones who are making the
situation worse, and a majority of Iraqis don't want us there. Why are we
there?

The Bush administration has called what is happening in Africa GENOCIDE, yet
we're hardly doing anything about it. Why? A couple of reasons... no oil,
dark skin color, we're bogged down in a war of choice that's draining our
resources and our military.

can't get to but maybe this once we can help some people we should say
F it? Your logic here doesn't make sense. And they need a civil
war. We had one largely due to the desire to end slavery. I would
argue that torturing people because they are a differnt religion than
the leaders is is just as good a reason to have a civil war as
slavery.

They need a civil war? Well, they've got one, thanks to us. 100s of 1000s
are dead and maimed because of us. I'm sure they appreciate it.

Saddam is dead. You're living in the wrong century.

Yeah but there are still a lot of people that want to pick up where he
left off. A lot of people that think that the way you get what you
want is to drive a car bomb into a city and blow up a bunch of
children. But we shold let that go, that's America's fault not the
guy who made the bomb or the guy who blew it up or the leadership that
convinces them to do it. Nope it's America's fault, even though this
has been going on there for decades.

We didn't need to topple Saddam the way we did. If Bush, who had very high
poll numbers at the time, had come to the American people, and said, listen,
Saddam is murdering his people, I think we should do something, Bush would
have likely gotten approval to do something from a Republican controlled
Congress, perhaps even to go to war. Unfortunately, for both us and the
Iraqis, we were mislead or worse lied to, there was no sound military plan
in a large measure because of Rumsfeld, and now 100s die each day.

And, let's not forget the "other" war in Afganistan. No one thinks there was
lack of reasons to fight there. Initially, we did a great job, but now, due
to lack of military resources, that situation is starting to fall apart... a
place where Bin Laden and his buddies are *still* entrenched. All of this
because of a war of choice.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

Actually, there aren't. Most of the violence is due to racial strife not
people wanting Saddam back or do you think they're planning on having him be
resurrected?

Actually there are. They don't want him ressurected they want to
continue running the country the way Saddam did.

Excuse me, but I don't need convincing and neither should you. We need to
strive to always do the "right thing in all of the countries" with which we
possibly have any influence. We toppled Saddam, for the wrong reasons, but
it's done. Why are we still there? We're the ones who are making the
situation worse, and a majority of Iraqis don't want us there. Why are we
there?

Apparently you do need convincing. Where do you get this majority of
Iraqis stuff? Polls in Iraq show that hey want us there, soldiers
returning form Iraq tell of the Iraqi people being very grateful for
them being there. Where are getting this? Don't say you saw some
reporter on the news say it or heard it in a newsgroup please.

The Bush administration has called what is happening in Africa GENOCIDE, yet
we're hardly doing anything about it. Why? A couple of reasons... no oil,
dark skin color, we're bogged down in a war of choice that's draining our
resources and our military.

Yes because the people need an emotion response to get into gear and
get behind doing the right thing. That is historically the US MO.
WWII we did the same thing. I agree that we should be in Africa
helping those people but Americans will never get behind it because
they don't give a crap about people in other countries suffering until
it directly affects them. They say they do but when it comes time to
put up they get all whiny about how war is not the answer when
sometimes, sad to say, it is. The people here need t have some kind
of an excuse to go into it and when they forget the excusse they can't
see there real reson or the good we are doing so they cut the balls
off our resolution and make things worse.

They need a civil war? Well, they've got one, thanks to us. 100s of 1000s
are dead and maimed because of us. I'm sure they appreciate it.

Many people were dying there before we ever came along. So many are
dying because of the way their society is set up. The average person
that just wants to live and not be oppressed is the ones I'm concerned
for not the car bombing Jihad assholes. You are the kind of person
that thinks it is okay to let a gang run a town and keep people in
fear because standing up to the killers will cause them to kill more
people until they are stopped. You thinkit is better to live in that
fear and put up with oppression rather than risk your life to get your
freedom from it. I'm not that kind of person.

We didn't need to topple Saddam the way we did. If Bush, who had very high
poll numbers at the time, had come to the American people, and said, listen,
Saddam is murdering his people, I think we should do something, Bush would
have likely gotten approval to do something from a Republican controlled
Congress, perhaps even to go to war.

No we would not have. This is evidenced by your earlier statement
that Bush has said there is Genocide in Africa but nobody is calling
for us to go to war there nobody is outraged and screaming on the news
for us to be in Africa. We say oh that's too bad and watch more
American Idol. The only reason we are doing the right thing in Iraq
is because the people were lied to. You can't have it both ways. You
can't say the onyl reason we went to war in Iraq is because we were
lied to even though we may be helping people and then turn around and
say we aren't in Africa because even though we know the truth and what
is going on there.

And, let's not forget the "other" war in Afganistan. No one thinks there was
lack of reasons to fight there. Initially, we did a great job, but now, due
to lack of military resources, that situation is starting to fall apart... a
place where Bin Laden and his buddies are *still* entrenched. All of this
because of a war of choice.

The war in Afganistan is not with Afganistan but with Bin Laden and
his followers who have been effectively stopped. We haven't left yet
because if we do they may come back until we find Bin Laden and all of
his followers. Last time I checked there hasn't been any terrorist
bombings from his group int eh U.S. since we started this war with him
so it seems to be working.

If this is winning...
 

"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually, there aren't. Most of the violence is due to racial strife not
people wanting Saddam back or do you think they're planning on having him
be
resurrected?

Actually there are. They don't want him ressurected they want to
continue running the country the way Saddam did.

Please supply the numbers, since you're in the know.

Apparently you do need convincing. Where do you get this majority of
Iraqis stuff? Polls in Iraq show that hey want us there, soldiers
returning form Iraq tell of the Iraqi people being very grateful for
them being there. Where are getting this? Don't say you saw some
reporter on the news say it or heard it in a newsgroup please.

OIC... I guess ABC, NBC, CBS, and gulp FOX news are all liberal media. Not
to mention, God Forbid, NPR.

The Bush administration has called what is happening in Africa GENOCIDE,
yet
we're hardly doing anything about it. Why? A couple of reasons... no oil,
dark skin color, we're bogged down in a war of choice that's draining our
resources and our military.

Yes because the people need an emotion response to get into gear and
get behind doing the right thing. That is historically the US MO.
WWII we did the same thing. I agree that we should be in Africa
helping those people but Americans will never get behind it because
they don't give a crap about people in other countries suffering until
it directly affects them. They say they do but when it comes time to
put up they get all whiny about how war is not the answer when
sometimes, sad to say, it is. The people here need t have some kind
of an excuse to go into it and when they forget the excusse they can't
see there real reson or the good we are doing so they cut the balls
off our resolution and make things worse.

I'm sorry, but I have a more optomistic view of Americans. I'm sorry you
don't.

They need a civil war? Well, they've got one, thanks to us. 100s of 1000s
are dead and maimed because of us. I'm sure they appreciate it.

Many people were dying there before we ever came along. So many are
dying because of the way their society is set up. The average person
that just wants to live and not be oppressed is the ones I'm concerned
for not the car bombing Jihad assholes. You are the kind of person
that thinks it is okay to let a gang run a town and keep people in
fear because standing up to the killers will cause them to kill more
people until they are stopped. You thinkit is better to live in that
fear and put up with oppression rather than risk your life to get your
freedom from it. I'm not that kind of person.

But not via car bombs in crowded markets. Feel free to hurl your insults,
but it doesn't strengthen your argument.

We didn't need to topple Saddam the way we did. If Bush, who had very
high
poll numbers at the time, had come to the American people, and said,
listen,
Saddam is murdering his people, I think we should do something, Bush
would
have likely gotten approval to do something from a Republican controlled
Congress, perhaps even to go to war.

No we would not have. This is evidenced by your earlier statement
that Bush has said there is Genocide in Africa but nobody is calling
for us to go to war there nobody is outraged and screaming on the news
for us to be in Africa. We say oh that's too bad and watch more
American Idol. The only reason we are doing the right thing in Iraq
is because the people were lied to. You can't have it both ways. You
can't say the onyl reason we went to war in Iraq is because we were
lied to even though we may be helping people and then turn around and
say we aren't in Africa because even though we know the truth and what
is going on there.

You know this because you're an expert in all things related to how
Americans think, feel, act. Well, ok....

And, let's not forget the "other" war in Afganistan. No one thinks there
was
lack of reasons to fight there. Initially, we did a great job, but now,
due
to lack of military resources, that situation is starting to fall
apart... a
place where Bin Laden and his buddies are *still* entrenched. All of this
because of a war of choice.

The war in Afganistan is not with Afganistan but with Bin Laden and
his followers who have been effectively stopped. We haven't left yet
because if we do they may come back until we find Bin Laden and all of
his followers. Last time I checked there hasn't been any terrorist
bombings from his group int eh U.S. since we started this war with him
so it seems to be working.

Nope. It's with the Taliban, which was the "legitimate" gov't of Afganistan.

Oh, so because something hasn't happened, therefore it won't happen. Sounds
like Bush's philosophy right before 9/11. He went on vacation.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:21:54 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I'm sorry, but I have a more optomistic view of Americans. I'm sorry you
don't.

Halliburton.


Ah, is umm, that your idea of a rational argument?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:32:15 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Halliburton.


Ah, is umm, that your idea of a rational argument?

No. It's yours. Have to get down to your level of discourse.


Ok. In that case try this... slowly now.... Pel Oh See

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On 19 Apr 2007 19:57:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:32:15 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Halliburton.


Ah, is umm, that your idea of a rational argument?

No. It's yours. Have to get down to your level of discourse.

Since the two of you buffoons can't seem to maintain decorum and some
sense of
what should be discussed at such length in a group where it is off topic,
I'm
guessing it would be okay to forget a certain phone call and resume
endless
posts about drug use and homosexuality. Happy to oblige!

CWM


What are you talking about? We're having a semi-rational discussion. Are you
upset by something?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

If this is winning...
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:28:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Ok. In that case try this... slowly now.... Pel Oh See

Is that supposed to be like "Owah Tagu Siam?"


g


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com