DAAK Foren-Übersicht DAAK
Deutscher Axis and Allies Klub
 
 FAQFAQ   SuchenSuchen   MitgliederlisteMitgliederliste   BenutzergruppenBenutzergruppen   RegistrierenRegistrieren 
 ProfilProfil   Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesenEinloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesen   LoginLogin 

Policy??
Gehe zu Seite 1, 2, 3, 4  Weiter
 
Neues Thema eröffnen   Dieses Thema ist gesperrt, du kannst keine Beiträge editieren oder beantworten.    DAAK Foren-Übersicht -> English Forum
Vorheriges Thema anzeigen :: Nächstes Thema anzeigen  
Autor Nachricht
TIGER
Brigadegeneral


Anmeldedatum: 12.06.2002
Beiträge: 741
Wohnort: Köln

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Feb 07, 2003 11:48 am    Titel: Policy?? Antworten mit Zitat

Hi, everybody.

I would like to know, how you think about the yersterdays speech of
Americas "Minister of Defence" Donald Rumsfeld concerning Germanys
position to Iraq and the compariung (I don`7 know if it is the right word!)between Germany and Lybia/Cuba.

I`m interested what you think of this comparison.....

TIGER
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden
Zab
General


Anmeldedatum: 06.06.2002
Beiträge: 3307
Wohnort: Wedemark / Hannover

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Feb 07, 2003 12:27 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Hi,

a good and very difficult question.

So in my opinion G.W. Bush ist a very dangerous man.

So if see that this man turned the very good balance of Clinton into debt
that he has no concept for new jobs or a better economic situation
and his own way is the way of war witout concepts..it should be allowed to ask if he drives a monkey...

On the other hand is also allowed to ask if the german way is so correct or if it wouldnt have been better tó wait with this clear no until one have the results out of iraq.

This should be allowed.

So Mr. Rumsfeld is just an old man who did not know what he says. If he really believes in that waht he says, one should care about the whole US-government.

It is time that both governments have to speak together not over each other...
_________________
Gruß

Zab
=========================
Es genügt nicht, keine Ideen zu haben, man muss auch unfähig sein, sie auszudrücken.


Zuletzt bearbeitet von Zab am Fr Feb 07, 2003 3:32 pm, insgesamt einmal bearbeitet
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
Willem
Leutnant


Anmeldedatum: 07.06.2002
Beiträge: 362
Wohnort: Braunschweig

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Feb 07, 2003 3:11 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

I also would like to know the opinons from the american people. What can the american DAAK-Members say? Do the people get notice from the national resistance against the war? How many people (%) have opposite opinions to the gouvernment? Do you think the war ist unstopable? And what do you think about the theory, that economic improvement is the first goal of all (the oil and the weak business cycle)?
I have given my statement in german, because my english is too bad to explain it expressly to avoid missunderstandings, but a few words:
I am against the war and i am happy, that the german gouvernment represents the opinion of the european people's majority.
But i also think, Hussein is a bad person, but if it is not explicit proven, that he has working "big weapons", a war ist not acceptable.
To the comparison to lybia and cuba and can only give a big smile and my right middlefinger (joke Oh well), i think it's totaly displaced!

Bye,
Willem
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
jadtiger
Unteroffizier


Anmeldedatum: 09.02.2003
Beiträge: 88

BeitragVerfasst am: So Feb 09, 2003 7:11 pm    Titel: Policy?? Antworten mit Zitat

hi,

i think very few americans want war for the sake of war. but we understand our responsibility/role as a superpower and are willing to go to war if war is *justified*.

therein lies the problem--the process of justifying the war with iraq. and it's here that americans are split on the issue. americans (and the rest of the world, i imagine) hates saddam, and agrees that he should not be in power. but is not liking someone a good enough reason to go to war? for most the answer is 'no', but we'll only go to war if we think that saddam is a genuine threat (has nuclear or biological weapons).

****************************************
to answer your question, i did some research of different polls and found:

85% of americans said they would be convinced that war was justified if they saw evidence that ?Iraq has biological or chemical weapons,? and 76 percent would be convinced for war if they saw ?Iraq is obstructing the U.N. weapons inspectors.? (USA today)

By 60% to 35%, people in the Newsweek poll released Saturday they would prefer that the Bush administration allow more time to find an alternative to war. (newsweek magazine)

Support for a military option would be strong, 81%, if the United States were to act with full allied support and the backing of the U.N. Security Council. A majority would be opposed should this country act without the support of the United Nations and had no more than one or two allies. (newsweek)
***************************************

i think most americans will support a war if war is found to be necessary, but want to be convinced first that war is justified, and most people here don't think we should act alone, we want the approval of the U.N.

as for your comments about president bush and the way other countries view him (as a warmonger). i think most americans feel that since we elected him, he is our leader and we have to trust him. therefore, when it comes to military action against Iraq: 60 percent felt it should happen, 27 were against it.

i found this poll very interesting:

?Who do you trust more when it comes to U.S. policy toward Iraq, Colin Powell or the President?? They found 63 percent said Powell, 24 percent said Bush. (USA today)

so if colin powell (i think a man whom most americans respect and trust, and who represents the US at the UN council) says war is necessary, and shows proof that iraq is a threat, then we'll be willing to go to war with or without the support of other nations. and just today on CNN.com there is a report form Hans Blix (U.N. chief inspector) that "the Iraqis had handed over documents on "specific, high-profile unresolved issues" including anthrax, the chemical agent VX, and missiles." so it may be that saddam has been lying, and may have the weapons he claimed he didn't have--we'll have to wait and see.

i don't know the real reason for bush wanting to go to war (oil, $$$, fear of saddam, to help the iraquis people, etc.) but, many americans feel we have a duty to help protect the world--which may be something that people from other nations have some difficulty understanding.

hope this helps. Surprised [/u]
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Panther
General


Anmeldedatum: 05.06.2002
Beiträge: 6631
Wohnort: Ismaning, Bavaria

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Feb 10, 2003 9:25 am    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Jadtiger, thank you for for your interesting report.
Good to see that there are Americans who are analyzing the situation factually. Smile

I personally came to the conclusion that this war is about Iraqs oil, because the other reasons just are not cogently:
- Iraqs people will most likely suffer from a war. Above all there is no democratic opposition in Iraq, so removing Saddam is only replacing one dictator with another.
- Fear of Saddam: Is Saddam really that dangerous? Iraqs economy is down, since they were not allowed to export their oil since 12 years. I dont think that Saddam is able to do much harm. And he knows very well: If he gives only the smallest reason he will be attacked almost immidiately.
- Terrorism: The radical muslims dont like Saddam, but if Iraq will be attacked unjustfed (in their eyes) by western (non muslim) powers they will have another reason AND a lot more "volunteers" for suicide bombings.

So the oil reason is remaining: It could make sense because the economy is down almost worldwide and a lower price for oil would help a lot.
And if a possible war would be quickly successful and Iraqs oil came to the market this woulld significantly decrease the price for oil.

But that opposite may also happen: The war will not run well, or Saddam is able to demolish several oil springs or the whole Middle East gets disequilibrated. In this case the oil price will explode and a worldwide recession may result.

Addition:
Yes, I also respect Colin Powell. But could he change the mind of Bush and if not: Doesnt he have to obey Bushs orders?
_________________
Würfel sind nichts anderes als Foltergeräte in Miniaturausgabe, die von hinterhältigen Sadisten entwickelt wurden um Strategiespieler zu quälen!
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Feb 11, 2003 11:12 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Panther,
that sounds like a bunch of dribble. Oil? Oil? Is that the best you can do? Funny, I heard the same "reason" why the USA wanted to knock Saddam's socks off last time, yet we did not occupy Iraq, nor did we drain Iraq of oil.

As I've posted on AAMC's board, you & your french bed partners should seriously consider the unaccounted WMD & the range Iraqi missiles will have in the near future. Saddam is a threat to the USA by virtue he would without hesitation deliver a WMD to any group willing to deliver it to the USA as he is without the technology to strike it himself. He has proven to be a brutal, murderous tyrant to his own people by gassing women & children. Back to the missiles, he will likely be able to strike Europe in the very near future, not America.

Are you willing to take the risk his hatred for America is singlely directed toward the USA?

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Zab
General


Anmeldedatum: 06.06.2002
Beiträge: 3307
Wohnort: Wedemark / Hannover

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 8:31 am    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Hi Nemo,

hmm I think Oil ist one of the reasons. Otherwise: Why the USA did not take over North-Corea

It could be that Saddam has such missiles. I will believe it, but shouldn't it be the first step to proof it.

A proof isn't a photo of a transport or a house. I would like to see what is in the house.

So the USA also has to think about their way. It could'nt be that one country can decide if it is war or not. That is NOT democracy.

So it should be allowed to ask, from which country they have this missiles

As far as I know the USA supported the iraq a long time against the iran.
By the way. they did also with Osamas.. Troops...

Perhaps, it could be that a way of disarmament would be be better than a big war with an economic desaster.
_________________
Gruß

Zab
=========================
Es genügt nicht, keine Ideen zu haben, man muss auch unfähig sein, sie auszudrücken.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 9:02 am    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Zab,
In all due respect, I completely disagree with you. One nation can declare war on another. The United States Constitution dictates what the USA can & cannot do, not the U.N., not NATO, not Germany or France. Whether you like it or not, unilateral action can be taken by any single nation in the world.

Futhermore, to say the United States is acting alone is simply wrong. Turkey, The Czech Republic & Poland all seem to be on board with the USA. Why are the Czechs & Poles with us? Maybe it's because their memories are much more fresh with the likes of tyrant dictators.

It would seem the Germans have amnesia what it's like to have a tyrant leader presiding over the slaughter of too many. I guess there may not be much difference in some people's minds between 150,000 & 6,000,000 innocents murdered, eh?

As for North Korea, maybe the United States' position is one major theater of operations at a time. I'm not sure why we're not dealing with North Korea now, but I would have no reservations to end that threat as well. I doubt South Korea and Japan would have much of an issue with that battle as they both are in grave danger to a nuclear North Korea.

With regards to oil, Venezuela has more of an impact on oil prices right now than Iraq. One-third of US oil is from this little country that is in the midst an oil workers strike. Also, if oil was the object of the Gulf War of 1991, then the USA would have occupied Iraq and sucked it dry. We did not take such actions as that was not our goal. Thanks to our "allies" we did not march on Bagdad and finish the job completely. Is this our the rest of the world likes to do their chores, half-assed? Do it right the first time and things won't be an issue later.

Which countries in Eur-Asia have supplied Iraq with weapons and nuclear reactors? France, Germany & Russia. Which countries hiked the costs of weapons and reactors? France, Germany & Russia. Which countries stand to lose the most if Saddam is removed from power? Um, yes. Yes, it is all clear to me now, the USA stands in the way of the "global economy" of a few backbenchers that stand to lose financially. Yes, now it is a bit less fuzzy as to why our allies are doing their best to prevent this looming conflict.

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Zab
General


Anmeldedatum: 06.06.2002
Beiträge: 3307
Wohnort: Wedemark / Hannover

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 12:42 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Zitat:
In all due respect, I completely disagree with you. One nation can declare war on another.


That is the american way right. But it is not the way of peace.
One should have learned from the past...

nemo97 hat Folgendes geschrieben:

Futhermore, to say the United States is acting alone is simply wrong. Turkey, The Czech Republic & Poland all seem to be on board with the USA. Why are the Czechs & Poles with us? Maybe it's because their memories are much more fresh with the likes of tyrant dictators.
nemo97


Perhaps beacuase they see a chance to get a better ranking in the big policy?
The question is why Germany, France, Russia, now Spain do not board with the behavior of the USA?
Here in Europe they are more important than Poland etc.

I know that most of the amercians do not believe that we have here in europe hot water Oh well, but believe me , we have.
By the way Germany is not any longer NAZI-Germany. These times are over. There are more Nazi in the USA or the UK. It is a pitty but this is the truth.
But it sounds very good if one shows, some old pictures on TV....

So if would like to compare mistakes from the history, so we should also talk over vietnam.

Even the USA has follow some rules.

Finally,
I think we need troops down in the iraq , but not to fight. They have to control.
I think we need more Diplomacy
We do not need trouble between UN-Members
We do not trouble in the NATO

One has to fight against the international terrorism, but one has to proof if all people in one country are terrorists...

So, it is better to fight against the regime or against the whole country ?[/quote]
_________________
Gruß

Zab
=========================
Es genügt nicht, keine Ideen zu haben, man muss auch unfähig sein, sie auszudrücken.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
Aquapanik
General


Anmeldedatum: 10.10.2002
Beiträge: 1490

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 2:03 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Nemo,

You?re absolutely great in offending people, congratulations!

?that sounds like a bunch of dribble?; ?you & your French bed partners?; ?It would seem the Germans have amnesia what it's like to have a tyrant leader presiding over the slaughter of too many. I guess there may not be much difference in some people's minds between 150,000 & 6,000,000 innocents murdered, eh??

Your point of view, the Americans have to do it , they will do it and they can do it, that?s also great, we see and we feel you are proud, proud of your nation.

But hold on, being proud of my nation isn?t it just one step away from nationalism? Even nationalism sounds not too bad as long as we don?t translate it into German and take the abbreviation of that term: NAZI.

Be aware it?s really close, not only in words.

Don?t blame anyone with ?amnesia?, Germans remember, maybe too much, and we know about the short distance between being proud and nationalism.
We remember history; in Germany was a leader/government that thought they could do whatever they liked to do. They didn?t fear someone else because of their military strength. Most people believed in phrases like, ?our big nation? and they followed them.
At that time it was called Propaganda, today that term is absolutely negative, but if you see what it was at that time: inform the nation and inform it in that way the government has a need for.

If something is close to that, and today it seems to be similar to that, Germans have no confidence in it.

I?m sure we are far away from that and I state in the Bush administration are very democratic honourable men, no doubt about that.

And even if I?m not convinced in the decisions our Kanzler made, I understand why he did it and I accept a different opinion.

But I will not accept offending people and that is what you did.

If that is your behaviour you should stay in AAMC's board and blame yourself!

I will not respond anymore, we shouldn?t discuss things we cannot change. Everyone should feel free to post his opinion, that?s fine and everyone has a right to do it.


Aquapanik


@all

please post whatever you like to post, if you like to argue do it by PM. I'm interested in reading different point of views but a discussion with the same again and again is boring and will leed to offending someone.

thx
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden
achsenaxt
Brigadegeneral


Anmeldedatum: 04.12.2002
Beiträge: 768
Wohnort: Rostock

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 3:55 pm    Titel: Nemo, dit war ja wohl nischt. Antworten mit Zitat

nemo97 hat Folgendes geschrieben:
The United States Constitution dictates what the USA can & cannot do, not the U.N., not NATO...


I really hope, this was meant as a joke. Unfortunately, mother earth counts just few more people than you Amricans.

Nemo hat Folgendes geschrieben:
With regards to oil, Venezuela has more of an impact on oil prices right now than Iraq. One-third of US oil is from this little country that is in the midst an oil workers strike...


Though it is not necessarily wrong, I'd like to remind you, that a decreasing oil output in the persian gulf region influences the market prices for every sort of crude oil all over the world. Only about 5 percent less supply means an increasing market price of up to 100 %, caused by an as good as fixed demand (appearing within short periods).

So, Bush is interested in Saddam's oil. No matter what you're argueing for.


However, let me assure you, that the Germans dont hate Amrica, but war. (we learned at WW2)

Well, didnt you Americans learn anything in Vietnam?

Do you, Nemo, get any profit by attacking Iraq? No, you wont. That earnings are dedicated to Bush's family and friends.

Will you be blown up in your hometown's subway by Osamas revenge-bmbsqds? Maybe. (hope not!)

Will there be any killed people of Iraq, though they are absolutely innocent. - Yes, there will be thousands of them.

So, never forget, what a war is about, and which people are interested in.

Best regards
and - of course - peace

Achsenaxt
_________________
Rules at glance here.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 8:01 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

And I thought the conspiracy theorists here were bad! Rolling

I said no joke. The USA, Germany or any other nation can go to war unilaterally. Did Saddam ask the U.N.'s permission to roll into Kuwait? No. Did Milosovic ask for permission to start his genocide campaign in Yugoslavia? No.

Zab, the American government has tried earnestly to garner worldwide support in the war movement toward Iraq if Saddam does not produce the best documents of his dismantling of WMD and proves he has no such programs. He has not done this. Instead, even Hans Blicks has agreed, the documentation handed over to the U.N. weapons inspectors is flawed and very incomplete. If it is not clear to the rest of the world Saddam is mearly playing the shell game, then too bad for them. I guess it's time to take of the kid gloves and fight hard. Afterall, Saddam is nothing more than a neighborhood bully & knows just one thing, FORCE! It is force he will respond to, not appeasement. My point about Nazi Germany was Neville Chamberlain & whoever controlled France at the time thought appeasing Hitler would save them from war. Yes, I believe the Poles and other Eastern Euroepeans were quite thankful to France & Great Britian. Unlike the French, at least the Poles put up a great fight.

My point about the current day Poles & Czechs is they have a much more recent memory of living under conditions that are not pleasant. Maybe the Germans (obviously not the Germans living under Soviet rule) & French have become too soft with their short memories?

As for the Poles, Czechs & Turks... I do hope the US Gov't gives them much more preferred status when dealing with the USA. They deserve it as they are showing themselves to be the better allies.

Zitat:
The question is why Germany, France, Russia, now Spain do not board with the behavior of the USA?

As mentioned before, maybe the Germans, French & Russians still stand to gain too much profit from Saddam. The Spanish, who knows? Maybe they're just pissed for a little loss to the US in 1898?!?!?

Zitat:
By the way Germany is not any longer NAZI-Germany.

Really? I never once accused the current German gov't of being Nazi, but was merely trying to tie the appeasement approach France & Great Britian used with Germany hoping Hitler had all he wanted. They were wrong. Appeasement does not work. Never has, never will when you're dealing w/ the likes of Saddam & Hitler.

Viet Nam? Yes, a lovely inheritted disaster. Thank you France, you're a true friend. Check your history & you will see who dragged the USA into Viet Nam.

Zitat:
I think we need troops down in the iraq , but not to fight. They have to control.

Shall they just carry sticks if they are not there to fight?

Zitat:
I think we need more Diplomacy

I guess 12 years isn't long enough? Oh, I guess some in the world think diplomacy works that slowly?

Zitat:
We do not need trouble between UN-Members

Rolling Since when has there been harmony between U.N. members? No sooner than the U.N. was formed there was disharmony. The Cold War come to mind?

Zitat:
We do not trouble in the NATO

NATO was formed as an alliance to help each other out in the face of trouble. If you are not willing to deal with trouble when it presents itself, I suppose we should simply disband NATO. Hell, disband the U.N. while we're at it. They have both proven to be utterly useless to at least America. I guess as long as America foots the bill for the U.N. and stations a large portion of her military overseas then the U.N. & NATO won't complain. What if our troops simply come home & leave you to fend for yourselves? Personally, I could live with that.

Aquapanik, offending people by being blunt? Oh well. My point of view is no one else with any "real" say (i.e. former countries of importance in the geo-political sphere) have fallen short and proven to be useless. What has Tony Blair seen that makes him think this campaign against Iraq is warranted that he is willing send Royal Armed Forces? Why has the rest of the "important" members of the U.N. Security Council seen to it to look past this evidence? You & I do not see all that is there to be seen for good reasons. Exposing too much info puts informants in danger.

Hey, I'm all for nationalism. I can't stomach the thought of "one world" and "global community." I am not a citizen of the world. I am an American only! Nationalism is simply being proud of your country in my opinion. Going so far as to murder 6 million is genocide. Two distinctly different terms.

Zitat:
However, let me assure you, that the Germans dont hate Amrica, but war. (we learned at WW2)[/b]
You think we like war? Hardly. It sickens me to think my brothers & neighbors will be in harm's way so I & my family & friends can live safe & free. War is always a last resort in my opinion. Twelve years Saddam has ignored the U.N. resolutions and played game. His time is up. Diplomacy has failed. Many have just seemed to not have noticed that fact.

And just for the records so you all do not think I'm anti-European, I'm not. I hold in high regards many European peoples, including Germany. I simply do not understand the appeasement approach Europe has taken with Saddam.

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 8:02 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Sorry for the bungled last "quote." Rolling

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 12, 2003 9:44 pm    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Saddam's Bombmaker: http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/Saddam%20Nuke.htm

ANother link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30286


Yet another...http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/hamzatranscript.htm

.... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/cf.opinion.bombmaker/

.... http://www.meforum.org/article/9

Are you willing to find out this guy is a liar? I'm not.

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
nemo97
Oberstabsgefreiter


Anmeldedatum: 04.02.2003
Beiträge: 55

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Feb 13, 2003 9:59 pm    Titel: To Panther: Antworten mit Zitat

Instead of showing ill contempt toward me, why don't you actually factually address the issues I have posted on this thread. Running off to a language that takes time for me to translate to belittle me is a bit unbecoming, wouldn't you say? Laughing

nemo97
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Beiträge der letzten Zeit anzeigen:   
Neues Thema eröffnen   Dieses Thema ist gesperrt, du kannst keine Beiträge editieren oder beantworten.    DAAK Foren-Übersicht -> English Forum Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
Gehe zu Seite 1, 2, 3, 4  Weiter
Seite 1 von 4

 
Gehe zu:  
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht teilnehmen.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Deutsche Übersetzung von phpBB.de