First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Why Developing Countries are Poor
Posted 3/25/10
The U.S. only helps countries develop who can give them something back in return, so that is why they help them. They never directly "help" countries like Haiti, Zimbabwe, or Liberia (where I was born and grew up) because they know they don't contribute anything so they're taken advantage of. Liberia for example has close to five billion in debt, which means every citizen has to work all day every day for almost a decade without eating or drinking or consuming anything before it's paid off to the creditors.

After the natural disaster in Haiti, Bush and Clinton plastered their faces all over the relief effort to give the illusion the U.S. is a friend. Everyone can somewhat predict what may happen next. The U.S. will loan Haiti just enough money to rebuild some of their country and then throw a big interest rate on it, an amount that the country will never get to pay back.

This is just one example of how U.S. imperialism is firmly in control by keeping other countries to a certain degree of development while turning them into client states that constantly owe large sums of money. Haiti got the even shorter end of the stick because the U.S. got help from other Western powers to keep Haiti the way it is. Every natural disaster to a poorer country makes for a very good business opportunity exploit. Just ask the guys who head the IMF, CFR, and World Bank. These guys wet their pants whenever an earthquake or hurricane hits an underdeveloped place.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 3/26/10
Yei has been reading John Perkins, thats for sure

and while your recital of Haiti's modern history may be accurate, the one thing i don't understand is this: if corporations get to do whatever they want with the country, why isn't the GDP higher? if corporate interests rule the place like you say, it doesn't make sense that they have so little output, since the corporations would be jumping at the chance to buy and build there for cheap land and labor. the corporations would be paying wages, importing resources, and exporting finished goods, all of which would be raising the GDP. even if they didn't pay their workers anything, all the money the business owners would be making would be raising the GDP. it doesn't follow that Haiti, being basically ruled by a business elite, has no business to speak of.

i confus.

while i'm looking, it seems the idea that the world bank or whatever is trying to keep these countries in constant debt doesn't ring very true for haiti, who was forgiven $225 million in debt, was able to pay off the rest, and depends heavily on formal donations to remain stable.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 4/23/10

Yei wrote:

Japan was a lot kinder than the European colonial powers and actually helped its own colonies develop as it did. That explains South Korea and Taiwan's development. Britain and other European countries on the other hand made sure their colonies would not develop. So, Japan's methods of industrialization and reaching huge wealth is how most countries did it in the past. Through mercantilist, protectionist essentially anti-free market economies, which require strong government control.

Where did Japan get these ideas for its economic policy? Britain had extreme mercantilist, protectionist, anti-free market economic policies for centuries, and this is what kept it the wealthiest and strongest country in the world. Britain simply destroyed any competition for its industries by force, or placed high tariffs on them. India was supposed to be the leading world super power, and should have developed well before the US did. It had more advanced textile, steel and various other industries, but of course under Britain's rule, any Indian industry that beat Britain's was destroyed. Britain kept these types of policies right up to WW2; whenever the Japanese competition was simply better than British industries, Britain simply barred all Japanese imports. This was a precursor for Japan's action in WW2, and of course the US economic policies were as well.


I think Japan and Britain have the same way colonize the countries. When the countries that Japan colonized has become developed like South Korea and Taiwan, at the same time the countries Britain colonized has also become developed much more like Ireland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Both Koreas were colonized by Japan, but why only South Korea became developed like we have now. There are various factors that determines their growth, either because of economics policies or war. It's not really fair to determines which one more developed just because their ex- colonizer was Japanese or European colonies.

Although yes, many countries which was under Portuguese and Netherlands were not developed yet. However, in case of Indonesia. It was being colonized by Holland but later was being under Japanese too and it was worse than what Holland did. Even though it's only 3 years but the elder here said '300 years under Dutch was much better than 3 years under Japanese'. Perhaps Japanese's imperialism policies different on each land they had possessed, knowing South East Asian countries have much more resources than Korea and Taiwan.


Yei wrote:

The World Bank system is so illogical and ridiculous, I really think its purpose is specifically to keep people poor and developing. Billions of dollars have been given to poor countries as loans, and usually at insane interest rates (like 30%). Of course, if the government of the country consists of a corrupt regime or an insane dictator put in place by an imperial force, it doesn't seem to make a difference. For example, Indonesia had one of the worst dictators of the 20th century: Suharto. If Indonesia is given millions of dollars in loans to help it develop, but the insane dictator uses the money on his military, buying some mansions, building a statue of himself, etc. The poor in the country never see it and are suffering and oppressed by the dictator's brutal regime anyway. The dictator doesn't care about paying anything back, and the debt grows ridiculously high. Then the UN's International Monetary Fund comes in, and asks the country's people to repay the debt. The people probably don't even know their country borrowed any money, and yet they have repay the debt somehow, which leads to them being even more exploited. I think it's so obviously illogical, that it had to have been put in place specifically to make sure poor nations don't develop.


That's true. The World Bank is corrupt and its purpose is solely for business not to help poor countries looking at their interest and other policies they forced especially to developing countries not to developed countries. It's the opposite, they extract money from rich resources-poor countries to be given to low resources-rich countries. Many are being forced to pay their loans through natural resources which is what The World Bank really intend to with low prices.

It will be to long be told here about why our first president fallen and the second took control with the help of US imperialism. And that's really right to the point how this second president wasted the country's money, not really though, many were borrowed from World Bank for his own interest using the country as his scapegoat to pay the loan. The US imperialism is still in here, unnoticed by many and unstoppable by government simply because this former dictator signed unbelievable treaty to exploit our land in Papua, the poorest land far north from Timor Leste. As result, the people of Papua often want to gain independence from Indonesia because of foreign imperialism really strong there.


Yei wrote:

And as for the rich countries giving money to developing countries, especially with regards to the US; the imperialist forces are simply maintaining their colonies. I remember hearing about a study that showed the countries that the US gives the most aide to tend to also have the worst government human rights violations. In the 1990s, Columbia was pretty much the worst human rights violator, massacres, torture, war on its own people. Of course, all fully backed financially and militarily by the US since the 1980s, and that's just one of many of examples. The money given to genuinely help poor people is not going to be allowed to do much with current regimes. If a developed country wants to alleviate poverty, it needs to do something about neocolonialism. Which means standing up to the US, which no one is about to do.


I think there are several countries that still developing not because of Imperialism. The country that US failed to win over like Vietnam. While it's true that they had the worst war ever in that era but since the conflict has ended, they didn't get through any hardship, blockade or imperialism but they still categorized as developing country. Does all of African's countries under imperialism of Britain and US? It's unlikely the core of what caused African's countries in poverty. Many are caused because the people are divided and wanted to gain control of the country, the civil war happening like almost everywhere. Without security. economy are unable to maintain its business.

The unstable country is what the imperialism power attracted to get their hands there. however, if they don't have conflict the imperialism power would gain less power there. Like South Africa, it's still developing country, but its development are much more better than other African country because Nelson Mandela put the conflict ended and united his people to focus on the country's development, Mandela really kept sure there is no conflict under his administration. That's why South Africa can held world event like World Cup 2010 now.


Yei wrote:

I think this is why Che Guevara is so revered as a hero and idolized, regardless of the bad things he may have done, he was one of the few people who saw what was wrong with the world and devoted his life to try to fix it. He clearly said the problems with the world are neocolonialism, imperialism and monopoly capitalism, so he knew what he was talking about. I think it was refreshing for many people that at least one influential figure saw how horrifying our world system really is and was frustrated that so many people are ignorant about how the world is run now.

My favourite quote of his says it all:

“We are overcome by anguish at this illogical moment of humanity.”


He's one of my favorite too. Even though I don't know much about his history but his struggle to revolt was really aspiring. South Americans leader now seems follow his trace to oppose imperialism like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Castro's brother of Cuba, etc. Well, it'll take time for them to develop, but surely they'll get their development if their intention is solely for prosperity of their people not for power. Money, power or influence sometimes fail to grasp the glory, what all we need is Iron-willed people with pure determination.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 4/27/10

Yei wrote:



My favourite quote of his says it all:

“We are overcome by anguish at this illogical moment of humanity.”


You know what, if you don't like it, do something about it, change won't come about unless someone takes action, nobody else seems to be volunteering, might as well be you.

Don't say one person can't accomplish anything, cause one single person holds the power the change the world if he / she really wants to. There are many instances throughout human history of one person making a substantial difference.

Don't like the state of the world, change it.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 4/27/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:



My favourite quote of his says it all:

“We are overcome by anguish at this illogical moment of humanity.”


You know what, if you don't like it, do something about it, change won't come about unless someone takes action, nobody else seems to be volunteering, might as well be you.

Don't say one person can't accomplish anything, cause one single person holds the power the change the world if he / she really wants to. There are many instances throughout human history of one person making a substantial difference.

Don't like the state of the world, change it.


I agree, and many people all over the world already are taking action. This is a critical century in humanity, so we need all the help we can get.

I think educating people in developed nations on how they were mentally enslaved, how the world really works, what their governments are doing, etc., is the first step that needs to be taken, and there are growing movements to do that. If people were not ignorant and trapped in the apathetic culture that's been built for them, they could easily demand real democracy and change their government's policies so imperialism can end and we can start making a better world.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 4/27/10

Yei wrote:

I agree, and many people all over the world already are taking action. This is a critical century in humanity, so we need all the help we can get.

I think educating people in developed nations on how they were mentally enslaved, how the world really works, what their governments are doing, etc., is the first step that needs to be taken, and there are growing movements to do that. If people were not ignorant and trapped in the apathetic culture that's been built for them, they could easily demand real democracy and change their government's policies so imperialism can end and we can start making a better world.


If you try that people are just gonna look at you like your crazy, informing people won't really work, take too long. Besides the people who try that will probably just 'disappear' anyway.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10 , edited 5/2/10
Your argument is based on the premise that A) The United States control the world, B ) It is by the United States will that countries develop, and C) industrialization has nothing to do with actually starting up factories, profitably but carefully using your countries resources, &c. These are apparently widely accept and clear views, that you do not need to go into details to explain why, or even link use, poor illiterate and mentally deficient users of the Internet, to an actual source. How would it be for the interest of the capitalistic world that under-developed nations like Zaire and Haiti remain so? There is much more profit to industrializing them. If we were to industrialize them, there will be more money, and with more money, there is a higher demand for luxury items. We, Americans, may produce these luxury items for the sake of selling them to these developing nation, increasing our revenue and creating jobs for our citizens.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 5/2/10 , edited 5/2/10

orangeflute wrote:

Your argument is based on the premise that A) The United States control the world, B ) It is by the United States will that countries develop, and C) industrialization has nothing to do with actually starting up factories, profitably but carefully using your countries resources, &c. These are apparently widely accept and clear views, that you do not need to go into details to explain why, or even link use, poor illiterate and mentally deficient users of the Internet, to an actual source. How would it be for the interest of the capitalistic world that under-developed nations like Zaire and Haiti remain so? There is much more profit to industrializing them. If we were to industrialize them, there will be more money, and with more money, there is a higher demand for luxury items. We, Americans, may produce these luxury items for the sake of selling them to these developing nation, increasing our revenue and creating jobs for our citizens.


Are you not familiar with the imperialism that's been happening since the beginning of civilization? Because that would explain asking why imperialist states don't develop their colonies. Is that really a hard question? Would it have made sense for European colonizers to developed their colonies? The same exact reasons that apply to old imperialism apply now.

The only imperialist state that's ever developed its colonies is Japan, and it was obviously one of the smallest empires. And it obviously worked against Japan the colonies became independent and stayed developed.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

Your argument is based on the premise that A) The United States control the world, B ) It is by the United States will that countries develop, and C) industrialization has nothing to do with actually starting up factories, profitably but carefully using your countries resources, &c. These are apparently widely accept and clear views, that you do not need to go into details to explain why, or even link use, poor illiterate and mentally deficient users of the Internet, to an actual source. How would it be for the interest of the capitalistic world that under-developed nations like Zaire and Haiti remain so? There is much more profit to industrializing them. If we were to industrialize them, there will be more money, and with more money, there is a higher demand for luxury items. We, Americans, may produce these luxury items for the sake of selling them to these developing nation, increasing our revenue and creating jobs for our citizens.


Are you not familiar with the imperialism that's been happening since the beginning of civilization? Because that would explain asking why imperialist states don't develop their colonies. Is that really a hard question? Would it have made sense for European colonizers to developed their colonies? The same exact reasons that apply to old imperialism apply now.

The only imperialist state that's ever developed its colonies is Japan, and it was obviously one of the smallest empires. And it obviously worked against Japan the colonies became independent and stayed developed.


I am familiar with Imperialism, in fact, modern Chinese history has been a tale of Imperialism. But, to the point. Japan is not the benevolent kindly loving parental emperor that you seem to make it out to be. For one, Japan had a huge Empire during WWII, gotten through bullying through the weaker, less developed nations of Eastern Asia. Likewise, Korea's boom, the Miracle of the Han River, came after the Korean War, after the Japanese occupation, and, thus, not a colony of Japan. Taiwan, on the other hand, owes its prosperity to America, who has done everything in its power to prove to the world the Capitalism is superior to Communism, and thus, did its best to make Taiwan prosperous, a fitting image to compare with the Communist Mainland. But, you have still done little to refute my argument on the benefits of industrialstion. It creates jobs, generates revenue, and create a taste for American product in industrialising nations.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 5/2/10 , edited 5/2/10

orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

Your argument is based on the premise that A) The United States control the world, B ) It is by the United States will that countries develop, and C) industrialization has nothing to do with actually starting up factories, profitably but carefully using your countries resources, &c. These are apparently widely accept and clear views, that you do not need to go into details to explain why, or even link use, poor illiterate and mentally deficient users of the Internet, to an actual source. How would it be for the interest of the capitalistic world that under-developed nations like Zaire and Haiti remain so? There is much more profit to industrializing them. If we were to industrialize them, there will be more money, and with more money, there is a higher demand for luxury items. We, Americans, may produce these luxury items for the sake of selling them to these developing nation, increasing our revenue and creating jobs for our citizens.


Are you not familiar with the imperialism that's been happening since the beginning of civilization? Because that would explain asking why imperialist states don't develop their colonies. Is that really a hard question? Would it have made sense for European colonizers to developed their colonies? The same exact reasons that apply to old imperialism apply now.

The only imperialist state that's ever developed its colonies is Japan, and it was obviously one of the smallest empires. And it obviously worked against Japan the colonies became independent and stayed developed.


I am familiar with Imperialism, in fact, modern Chinese history has been a tale of Imperialism. But, to the point. Japan is not the benevolent kindly loving parental emperor that you seem to make it out to be. For one, Japan had a huge Empire during WWII, gotten through bullying through the weaker, less developed nations of Eastern Asia. Likewise, Korea's boom, the Miracle of the Han River, came after the Korean War, after the Japanese occupation, and, thus, not a colony of Japan. Taiwan, on the other hand, owes its prosperity to America, who has done everything in its power to prove to the world the Capitalism is superior to Communism, and thus, did its best to make Taiwan prosperous, a fitting image to compare with the Communist Mainland. But, you have still done little to refute my argument on the benefits of industrialstion. It creates jobs, generates revenue, and create a taste for American product in industrialising nations.


I didn't say Japan was a benevolent empire, no empire has ever been benevolent. The WW2 empire was just temporary invasion, I'm talking about colonies. Japan's colonies were only Taiwan, Korea and some northern territory that's now Russia. Korea and Taiwan's development followed almost an identical path with Japan. They were all destroyed in WW2 and eventually had a strong recovery. South Korea was miraculously able to recover even after the US's disgusting war there that left a dictator in charge.

If you're familiar with imperialism, then it would be pretty obvious that development of colonies is not allowed. Of course, US corporations are allowed to build factories and infrastructure that benefits them. That's modern imperialism, but development in terms of alleviating poverty, getting a proper government, taking care of living standards, education, etc. That's real development. Development as in introducing wage slavery and neoliberal economics for US corporations is what's allowed.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/3/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

Your argument is based on the premise that A) The United States control the world, B ) It is by the United States will that countries develop, and C) industrialization has nothing to do with actually starting up factories, profitably but carefully using your countries resources, &c. These are apparently widely accept and clear views, that you do not need to go into details to explain why, or even link use, poor illiterate and mentally deficient users of the Internet, to an actual source. How would it be for the interest of the capitalistic world that under-developed nations like Zaire and Haiti remain so? There is much more profit to industrializing them. If we were to industrialize them, there will be more money, and with more money, there is a higher demand for luxury items. We, Americans, may produce these luxury items for the sake of selling them to these developing nation, increasing our revenue and creating jobs for our citizens.


Are you not familiar with the imperialism that's been happening since the beginning of civilization? Because that would explain asking why imperialist states don't develop their colonies. Is that really a hard question? Would it have made sense for European colonizers to developed their colonies? The same exact reasons that apply to old imperialism apply now.

The only imperialist state that's ever developed its colonies is Japan, and it was obviously one of the smallest empires. And it obviously worked against Japan the colonies became independent and stayed developed.


I am familiar with Imperialism, in fact, modern Chinese history has been a tale of Imperialism. But, to the point. Japan is not the benevolent kindly loving parental emperor that you seem to make it out to be. For one, Japan had a huge Empire during WWII, gotten through bullying through the weaker, less developed nations of Eastern Asia. Likewise, Korea's boom, the Miracle of the Han River, came after the Korean War, after the Japanese occupation, and, thus, not a colony of Japan. Taiwan, on the other hand, owes its prosperity to America, who has done everything in its power to prove to the world the Capitalism is superior to Communism, and thus, did its best to make Taiwan prosperous, a fitting image to compare with the Communist Mainland. But, you have still done little to refute my argument on the benefits of industrialstion. It creates jobs, generates revenue, and create a taste for American product in industrialising nations.


I didn't say Japan was a benevolent empire, no empire has ever been benevolent. The WW2 empire was just temporary invasion, I'm talking about colonies. Japan's colonies were only Taiwan, Korea and some northern territory that's now Russia. Korea and Taiwan's development followed almost an identical path with Japan. They were all destroyed in WW2 and eventually had a strong recovery. South Korea was miraculously able to recover even after the US's disgusting war there that left a dictator in charge.

If you're familiar with imperialism, then it would be pretty obvious that development of colonies is not allowed. Of course, US corporations are allowed to build factories and infrastructure that benefits them. That's modern imperialism, but development in terms of alleviating poverty, getting a proper government, taking care of living standards, education, etc. That's real development. Development as in introducing wage slavery and neoliberal economics for US corporations is what's allowed.


What exactly is "imperialism", cause I hear this term quite often but I don't have any proper definition for it.

And how is building factories in other countries a problem, its expensive as holy fuck to build them in the US(tens of millions of dollars), and it costs a fortune to pay workers in the US, most companies would to bankrupt if they were forced to build 100% of all their products in the US. I'll admit maybe the over seas workers don't get paid jack shit, but thats to be expected you know, if they can get away with it they'll do it, or if they think they can get away with it, they'll try it, thats how the human brain works isn't it. Its basic human nature, it aint gonna change anytime soon.


I mean sure building them in china and paying someone 2 cents to manufacture a pair of shoes, then turn around and charge 100 bucks for them here is a huge rip off, but that's why you don't buy them, you don't have to buy their products do you ? Its actually law that you cannot be forced to purchase products from the market, at least it is here anyway. I dunno about in canda but you guys should have something similar.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 5/4/10

Allhailodin wrote:

What exactly is "imperialism", cause I hear this term quite often but I don't have any proper definition for it.

And how is building factories in other countries a problem, its expensive as holy fuck to build them in the US(tens of millions of dollars), and it costs a fortune to pay workers in the US, most companies would to bankrupt if they were forced to build 100% of all their products in the US. I'll admit maybe the over seas workers don't get paid jack shit, but thats to be expected you know, if they can get away with it they'll do it, or if they think they can get away with it, they'll try it, thats how the human brain works isn't it. Its basic human nature, it aint gonna change anytime soon.


I mean sure building them in china and paying someone 2 cents to manufacture a pair of shoes, then turn around and charge 100 bucks for them here is a huge rip off, but that's why you don't buy them, you don't have to buy their products do you ? Its actually law that you cannot be forced to purchase products from the market, at least it is here anyway. I dunno about in canda but you guys should have something similar.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

It's empire building and maintaining. For example, the Roman Empire, the British Empire and now the US Empire.

There's no point in responding to the rest lol.....
55201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/13/10 , edited 5/14/10
Well I given this some thought one Japan did not escape britsh, what would have been the point they had nothing it did not have any natural resources other wise Japan. The Japanese has and still have an image problem in Asia a bigot or even worst raciest. Now that said people here in USA are poor why basically they do not have priorities or goals. You can give a poor person here 10 million and in 7 or so years they will be poor again. In this third world counties get in there head they have to take control over their futures they will get things done. Play the blame game is only going to set them back. And stop killing one another off might be a good start. Blame others for these problems just reinforce the victim state of mind. So many people do not understand the black community was further along in having a strong economy in the USA before civil rights. I am glad they can vote but they took the hand of give me instead of self respect. And have done more damage to their one people than any Hate group in this country. As for you that blame the USA for your problems and why we became a world power you can thank Germany Italy and Japan for that one. By the way when looking at money given to third world counties from this country it the citizen that make that choice and give far more than any one county including the USA government. Basically your part of the problem not the answer just another finger pointer, give them money what would change? Like I said you can give a poor person 10 million and they are broke again. Nothing learned.
The Wise Wizard
76415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 5/14/10

Yei wrote:
South Korea was miraculously able to recover even after the US's disgusting war there that left a dictator in charge.

Mind explaining that?

First, the Korean war was a U.N. action. Second, if the U.N. (or U.S., if you prefer) had done nothing, Korea would be a single nation now, unquestionably under the rule of a dictator, and based on what North Korea is like, far worse off.

Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 5/14/10 , edited 5/14/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


Yei wrote:
South Korea was miraculously able to recover even after the US's disgusting war there that left a dictator in charge.

Mind explaining that?

First, the Korean war was a U.N. action. Second, if the U.N. (or U.S., if you prefer) had done nothing, Korea would be a single nation now, unquestionably under the rule of a dictator, and based on what North Korea is like, far worse off.




WW2 was an imperialist war, so the US occupied the South and the Soviet Union occupied the North, both didn't want to leave control in the other's hands, so they both set up their own puppet regimes; two dictators who did nothing but follow orders. The US puppet dictator in the South was Syngman Rhee, he executed tens of thousands of South Koreans and was incredibly oppressive. Eventually, a lot of tension built up around the border that the US and Soviet Union magically made appear, there were lots of clashed there leading up to the war. Rhee was the more insane dictator and expressed a lot of interest in unifying the country by force, and so from what I've read, he was the aggressor. US propaganda would obviously say something different about their favorable dictator. The UN at that time was just a US imperialist tool, no other country really had any power in it, the US called all the shots. The US used biological weapons, napalm, and completely destroyed both North and South Korea (there were lots of resistance movements in the South to fight against Rhee), and between 2 to 3 million Koreans were killed. That goes under the 'crimes against humanity' section of US atrocities, and there's absolutely no way to defend that. At the end, both North and South had dictators in charge. The Koreans had just been occupied and tortured by Japan, and then the countries that come to save them did all this to them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.