See other Neocon Nuttery Articles
Title: John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticise US-Russia deal on Syria
Source:
The Guardian
URL Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/20 ... lindsey-graham-syria-statement
Published: Sep 14, 2013
Author: Martin Pengelly
Post Date: 2013-09-15 20:20:48 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 957
Comments: 22
The Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have criticised the deal struck by the US and Russia regarding the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. In a statement released on Saturday, McCain and Graham said the deal would give the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, time "to delay and deceive" while the country's civil war continued. The statement said: "It requires a willful suspension of disbelief to see this agreement as anything other than the start of a diplomatic blind alley, and the Obama administration is being led into it by Bashar Assad and [Russian president] Vladimir Putin." The agreement, which is the result of three days of talks in Geneva between the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, was announced on Saturday morning. It requires Syria to provide a list of its chemical weapons within a week, to allow inspectors into the country by November and to help ensure the removal and destruction of all chemical weapons by the middle of 2014. In their joint statement, however, McCain and Graham – who two weeks ago were invited to the White House, to discuss the administration's attempts to win Congressional support for military strikes in Syria – said: "What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement – they see it as an act of provocative weakness on America's part. We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon." They added: "Assad will use the months and months afforded to him to delay and deceive the world using every trick in Saddam Hussein's playbook." The statement concluded: "The only way this underlying conflict can be brought to a decent end is by significantly increasing our support to moderate opposition forces in Syria. We must strengthen their ability to degrade Assad's military advantage, change the momentum on the battlefield, and thereby create real conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Why do they publish the blatherings of a fool and a sissy?
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Why aren't those fucksticks recalled and disposed of?
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner. So, Iran wants a nuclear weapon. Well, I think not. But, we all know that it is a short step from peaceful use of nuclear energy to making a bomb. Let's hope that the Iranians do not make that short step. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Assad is an educated man. He knows full well that Putin is behind him. Why on earth would he be using "every trick in Saddam Hussein's playbook"? Beats me. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
It's the standard "demonize your desired target" trick designed to work up the faithful and make them think Assad is a horrible monster who needs to be "put in his place". All the while lying about the nature of their true reasons, and hiding the fact that they are aiding and abetting those who are hostile to the United States and whom we are at war with. Examples of more such blatherings here: U.S. Public-Elite Disconnect Emerges Over Syria - BlackListedNews.com ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
It's the standard "demonize your desired target" trick designed to work up the faithful and make them think Assad is a horrible monster who needs to be "put in his place". All the while lying about the nature of their true reasons, and hiding the fact that they are aiding and abetting those who are hostile to the United States and whom we are at war with. Well stated. "“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha Examples of more such blatherings here: U.S. Public-Elite Disconnect Emerges Over Syria - BlackListedNews.com Definitely blathering. In a nutshell the American Public has become aware that offishul Washington lies with great regularity, and that there are no good reasons for us to become involved in the plunder of another country for someone else's benefit. Simply put - the rationales for yet another pointless war are lies to cover up the real reasons and more and more people are aware of that - even if not on an active level. "“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha It gets even worse here: If History Is Any Measure, the Clock Is Ticking - nytimes.com excerpts When Saddam Hussein, defeated in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, had to demonstrate that he was giving up his chemical arsenal, Iraqis protected by little more than tattered cloths over their faces poured some of the agents into ditches and set them on fire — to the shock of inspectors watching in heavy “moon suits.” Weapons experts and diplomats say that if President Bashar al-Assad is serious about complying with the landmark agreement announced in Geneva on Saturday, he will have to take similarly dramatic action in the coming weeks. the destruction of chemical agents is a painstaking process that, to be done safely and securely, can easily take decades ... But if Mr. Assad does not put on “a big, demonstrable show” to prove to the Syrian military that he is “giving up the crown jewels,” [one senior administration] official said, “this isn’t going to work.” the immediate destruction of empty warheads and bombs “serves to reinforce that point.” American officials say they expect Mr. Assad to balk at the destruction of missile warheads or bombs, which can be used for conventional and unconventional arms. Mr. Hussein and Colonel Qaddafi were both deposed and ultimately executed years after giving up their weapons. the United States’ effort to get rid of its own stockpile has now taken 28 years and $35 billion — and it is not yet over. Over the years, the United States has led the world in developing special furnaces that scrub out dangerous waste products, and it has created methods to react the material with water and other chemicals to permanently undo the toxic structures. It has built seven destruction plants across the world, including at Johnston Atoll in the Pacific and the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, and it is in the process of building two more, at Richmond, Ky., and Pueblo, Colo. Mr. Obama has made it clear to his staff that no one has time for a painstakingly slow process in Syria, and the Geneva agreement reflects that urgency. The [Syria] agreement calls for the destruction of chemical agent mixing equipment by November and, perhaps most ambitious, for Syria to completely rid itself of chemical weapons and production facilities in less than a year, a timetable that would set a speed record and one that many experts doubt could be completed even with Syria’s full cooperation. At the core of the debate over how to test Mr. Assad are two conflicting strategies to getting rid of chemical arms: the slow, safe and costly, versus the quick and dirty. When the United States had to get rid of Nazi Germany’s chemical weapons, it dumped them into the Baltic Sea; Japan’s ended up in the Pacific. Iraq after the gulf war is a prime example of the quick-and-dirty approach. The chemical arsenal was destroyed, and at fire-sale prices compared with the costly American approach, said Charles A. Duelfer, a top United Nations official in the elimination of Iraq’s chemical arsenal. “We gathered stuff from all over and destroyed it for under $10 million,” he recalled in an interview. Some leaky munitions were too dangerous to move, Mr. Duelfer said. “So we’d dig a pit, put in diesel fuel, and blow the stuff up.” chemical experts would get up early to beat the desert heat, donning full-body protective suits that protected them from hazardous fumes at sites where lethal toxins were being incinerated in open pits. “They’d supervise the Iraqis,” he said of the United Nations inspectors. But the local workers themselves, he added, wore sandals and “put rags over their faces.” Libya was a different case. ... two years after Colonel Qaddafi’s death ... The United States is paying much of the bill for destroying what remains. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Notice the disinformation techniques applied here by the NY Slimes: What weapons experts and diplomats? Representing whose interests? The use of generalizations such as "weapons experts", and "diplomats" can be said by anyone and just be a generalized assertion. It is a logical fallacy known as the "Unsupported Assertion". This is something the major media do all the time but most people are not schooled in even basic logic, not part of the "curriculum", and so it slides right by them unexamined. Here we get an unrelated datum. What Ghadaffi did, or did not do, is not relevant to the current situation. More (il)logical sleight of hand to catch and sway the unwary. Oh, and how much good did it do Ghadaffi? Is he still not dead? Murdered under a white flag of truce by the people who said he would be safe if he got rid of his chemical weapons? Hitlery Klinton thought it was hilarious, but then she is a psychotic evil butch. And thus we got Gulf War Syndrome as tens of thousands of GI's were exposed to a heavily toxic environment - combined with so-called "Depleted Uranium". The NY Slimes is not even fit for wrapping fish - too toxic. "“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha Assad could promise the Kenyan his first and last born child and to disarm all of his countrymen but that wouldn't be enough. Just like nothing Saddam could do was enough for that warmonger Bush. www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/25/usa.iraq Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam Hussein's challenge to a televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have happened had they met Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised debate between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in New York. We will begin with a brief opening statement from each of you. Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my evil friend to the UN, one of the great American institutions for the propulsion of freedom throughout the world. Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today's debate we may find some common ground between the Iraqi people's commitment to peace and human progress and America's desire to destroy the Middle East. Bush: Do I answer that? Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do you have any links with al-Qaida? Bush: I do not. Blair: The question is for President Saddam. Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and simply, if I had links with al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed to tell the world, but since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it follows that I have no such links. Bush: Neither do I. Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr Bush, if America and Iraq were to go to war tomorrow, who would win? Bush: That's easy. America, right? Saddam: Even I knew that one. Bush: That's because the great United American States of America are on the side of rightliness and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of Iraq, North Korea and... how many are in an axis? Three? Blair: I think you're allowed as many as you like. Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France. Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq is not part of any Axis of Evil. Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania? Blair: Let's move on. Saddam, are you willing to destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in accordance with UN weapons inspectors' orders? Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed these so-called weapons, we would never destroy them, but since we do not have any such weapons, we are happy to comply, even though these non-existent weapons certainly do not exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I've tested them myself, and we don't have any. Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order to reach a negotiated solution? Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough. Blair: The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend. Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature. Saddam: OK. Blair: Sorry, but I'm not sure that "disarmature" is a word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr Richard Stilgoe. Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the action of disarming" according to the OED. Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off. Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it. Bush: Too late. Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an anagram of 'Demands a Sushi'? Saddam: Yes, I've heard them all. Bush: I don't eat sushi. Is there a fish option? Blair: I'd like to remind everyone at home that the Monica Lewinsky-Tonya Harding fight follows after the break. Paul Craig Roberts
What weapons experts and diplomats? Representing whose interests? The use of generalizations such as "weapons experts", and "diplomats" can be said by anyone and just be a generalized assertion. It is a logical fallacy known as the "Unsupported Assertion". Right and likewise their anonymous "senior administration official" tactic. Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I disagree with you. I think Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. And why not? It's a perfectly reasonable and understandable goal. If I'm Iran, living in a bad neighborhood with jihadist Sunni's out numbering me 100,000 to 1 and next door is Issy - with a PM genocidal kook like Netanwhowho and a trigger finger benefactor - i.e. Uncle Sam - why shouldn't/ wouldn't I get on the Mutual Destruction Deterrent bandwagon? Iranians haven't attacked another nation for hundreds of thousands of years. Why would they do it today even if they acquired nuclear weapons? It's not in Iran's MO to start wars, to act like a bully (like Israel and America). Frankly the nations I worry about acquiring [ functional] nuclear weapons are: 1. Saudi Arabia - they think they control jihadist Sunni terrorists but they don't and they are dangerous for that lack of real politik mindset 2. North Korea - the shoe collector is out of his freakin' mind - truly, he is mentally ill - like Father like Son
This chemical weapon stuff is hard to deal with. The Versailles Treaty that ended WW I, outlawed the use of chemical weapons. But still they are widespread and used occasionally. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
1. Saudi Arabia - they think they control jihadist Sunni terrorists but they don't and they are dangerous for that lack of real politik mindset 2. North Korea - the shoe collector is out of his freakin' mind - truly, he is mentally ill - like Father like Son You are right to worry about these two nations. But I worry more about nations such as Pakistan, who acquired nukes long ago. The ISI is on the short list of those who would be tempted to unleash their destructive power. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
From the archived 4um-list of references here: List of chemical arms control agreements | Chemical weapon | Geneva Protocol | Customary international law I could be wrong but think the Treaty of Versailles [1919] just prohibited Germany from poison gas. Maybe you're thinking of the [1925] Geneva Protocol? -- which was a general ban on chemical and biological warfare for all signatories to it. However, that was a League of Nations instrument of control and the League of Nations was dissolved in 1946. Germany was a signatory of the Geneva Protocol and America was too. Nevertheless (this example is from the Chemical Weapon link above): For one way that Globalists have been trying to get around the Geneva Protocol, etc., becoming defunct when the League of Nations did, see the link above for Customary international law, which basically abolishes the sovereignty of nations and forces compliance with so-called "norms" and rules they haven't agreed to. Edited for spelling and bracketed date-inserts at sentences 1 and 2. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
For one way that Globalists have been trying to get around the Geneva Protocol, etc., becoming defunct when the League of Nations did, see the link above for Customary international law, which basically abolishes the sovereignty of nations and forces compliance with so-called "norms" and rules they haven't agreed to. Cross-referencing 4um Title Obama's War on Syria Delayed, Not Deterred: A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them. The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law. If the Geneva Protocol was really still binding after the League of Nations dissolved, it could simply be amended for production, storage or transfer issues and all of this bellicose hoopla over Syria would be more "customarily understood" as maniacally redundant. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I recall the words of a song, "Did I hear you say that there must be a catch?" ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I recall the words of a song, "Did I hear you say that there must be a catch?" ;) Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia Libya in recent news: September 25, 2013 | From riches to rags: Libya seeks its first loans Libya became a party to the CWC in 2004, was given 8 years until April 29, 2012 to eliminate its chemical weapons but plans to be done doing that in December 2016 after 12 years. No mention in the above article about OPCW inspections. Compare to the much shorter deadline and the obligation demands imposed on Syria. As a party to the Geneva Protocol (that the U.N. insists is still valid), Syria should have been able to ask for help from U.N. Military forces to secure its weapons without being threatened with war to eliminate them and to eliminate them many years faster than other nations. If Syria wanted to join the Chemical Weapons Convention or not, the decision should have had nothing to do with being singled out to be struck by America's Military if it didn't comply so, as others haven't. The Chemical Weapons Convention has been disinfo-marketed as augmenting the Geneva Protocol for production, storage and transfer issues but amounts to "different strokes for different folks" like Syria, in which case it means no storage, for example. The U.N.'s "rules" are whatever it says they are on a case by case basis. Even the Alternative Media seems underconcerned about that. Out of the U.N. now, America. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
This sums it up. The U.N. is the modern day Tower of Babel. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Yep. Thinks it doesn't even need binding treaties to impose its dictats by threat of war. Should be dissolved like the League of Nations. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#2. To: Lod (#1)
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#3. To: X-15 (#0)
In their joint statement, however, McCain and Graham – who two weeks ago were invited to the White House, to discuss the administration's attempts to win Congressional support for military strikes in Syria – said: "What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement – they see it as an act of provocative weakness on America's part. We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon."
#4. To: X-15 (#0)
(Edited)
They added: "Assad will use the months and months afforded to him to delay and deceive the world using every trick in Saddam Hussein's playbook."
#5. To: BTP Holdings (#4)
Assad is an educated man. He knows full well that Putin is behind him. Why on earth would he be using "every trick in Saddam Hussein's playbook"? Beats me. ;)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#6. To: Lod (#1)
Why do they publish the blatherings of a fool and a sissy?
#7. To: FormerLurker, BTP Holdings (#5)
Assad is an educated man. He knows full well that Putin is behind him. Why on earth would he be using "every trick in Saddam Hussein's playbook"? Beats me. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#8. To: GreyLmist, Lod (#6)
Why do they publish the blatherings of a fool and a sissy?
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#9. To: Original_Intent, 4 (#8)
Definitely blathering.
When Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi had to convince the world 10 years ago that he was serious about giving up his chemical weapons, he dragged warheads and bombs into the desert and flattened them with bulldozers.
#10. To: GreyLmist, all (#9)
"...Weapons experts and diplomats say ..."
"When Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi had to convince the world 10 years ago that he was serious about giving up his chemical weapons, he dragged warheads and bombs into the desert and flattened them with bulldozers."
Mr. Hussein and Colonel Qaddafi were both deposed and ultimately executed years after giving up their weapons.
Iraq after the gulf war is a prime example of the quick-and-dirty approach. The chemical arsenal was destroyed, and at fire-sale prices compared with the costly American approach, said Charles A. Duelfer, a top United Nations official in the elimination of Iraq’s chemical arsenal.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#11. To: GreyLmist (#9)
(Edited)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#12. To: Original_Intent (#10)
Notice the disinformation techniques applied here by the NY Slimes:
"...Weapons experts and diplomats say ..."
And thus we got Gulf War Syndrome as tens of thousands of GI's were exposed to a heavily toxic environment - combined with so-called "Depleted Uranium".
The NY Slimes is not even fit for wrapping fish - too toxic.
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#11)
#14. To: BTP Holdings (#3)
(Edited)
So, Iran wants a nuclear weapon. Well, I think not. But, we all know that it is a short step from peaceful use of nuclear energy to making a bomb. Let's hope that the Iranians do not make that short step. ;)
#15. To: GreyLmist (#9)
#16. To: scrapper2 (#14)
Frankly the nations I worry about acquiring [ functional] nuclear weapons are:
#17. To: BTP Holdings, 4 (#15)
(Edited)
This chemical weapon stuff is hard to deal with. The Versailles Treaty that ended WW I, outlawed the use of chemical weapons. But still they are widespread and used occasionally. ;)
An unintended chemical weapon release occurred at the port of Bari. A German attack on the evening of December 2, 1943, damaged U.S. vessels in the harbour and the resultant release of mustard gas inflicted a total of 628 casualties.
#18. To: All (#17)
the [1925] Geneva Protocol? -- which was a general ban on chemical and biological warfare for all signatories to it. However, that was a League of Nations instrument of control and the League of Nations was dissolved in 1946. Germany was a signatory of the Geneva Protocol and America was too.
[Syria is] a 1925 Geneva Protocol signatory. It prohibits chemical and biological weapons use.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This [Protocol] is now understood [i.e. "customarily"] to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
#19. To: GreyLmist (#17)
For one way that Globalists have been trying to get around the Geneva Protocol, etc., becoming defunct when the League of Nations did, see the link above for Customary international law, which basically abolishes the sovereignty of nations and forces compliance with so-called "norms" and rules they haven't agreed to.
#20. To: BTP Holdings, All (#19)
For one way that Globalists have been trying to get around the Geneva Protocol, etc., becoming defunct when the League of Nations did, see the link above for Customary international law, which basically abolishes the sovereignty of nations and forces compliance with so-called "norms" and rules they haven't agreed to.
The convention is administered by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which acts as the legal platform for specification of the CWC provisions (the Conference of the States Parties is mandated to change the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention], pass regulations on implementation of CWC requirements etc.). [...] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants,
Libya, holder of Africa's largest crude reserves, is weighing its first bank loans as the Opec member seeks financing to more than double refining and expand chemical production, in projects forecast to cost $60 billion.
#21. To: GreyLmist (#20)
Out of the U.N. now, America.
#22. To: BTP Holdings (#21)
The U.N. is the modern day Tower of Babel. ;)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
