Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: The Migrant Crisis, Here and There

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

    The Migrant Crisis, Here and There

    Clinton gave us NAFTA. It seems that more oftenthan not, when an illegal is arrested, drugs are part of their crime. So how many of the drug abusers attributed to the US are foreign naiotnals that are accustomed to using drugs legally and selling drugs in their own countries?

    The Migrant Crisis, Here and There


    John Tirman
    Executive Director, MIT Center for International Studies


    Posted: 04/21/2015 6:37 pm EDT Updated: 2 hours ago


    It is ever more clear we are in the midst of a colossal migration crisis. In Europe, the haunting specter of hundreds, even thousands, of Africans drowning in the Mediterranean has captured headlines for a few days. European leaders, who had tried to discourage crossings by withdrawing naval patrols, will be forced to reconsider on humanitarian grounds. A similar situation shamed the United States last summer, when tens of thousands of Central American teenagers and even younger children traversed Mexico atop trains to escape violence and poverty. With spring, they are coming again.

    Politicians will endlessly argue about border security, sovereignty, illegal entry and humanitarian response. The debates on the Continent and in America mirror each other with notable fidelity. Racism is not America's domain alone. But race, security and other oft-mentioned issues are not the root of the crisis.

    What are the migrants fleeing? Most immediately, they are escaping violence -- in Mali, Libya, Syria, Guatemala, Mexico and several other places. It is violence that has many roots, some of it attributable to first world blunders (as with the intervention in Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi), some to first world vice, particularly demand for illegal drugs.

    Most of the reasons why people want to go north to Europe and America is to escape poverty. And here, the United States and Europe have a very visible hand in the catastrophe. For more than three decades, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, other international financial institutions and bilateral agreements have forced African and Latin American economies to accept a "neoliberal" vision of economic and political reform. This agenda, mainly a push to privatize state assets -- mineral resources, communications, banks and so on -- and shrink government-led social services, has failed to produce sustained economic growth throughout Sub-Saharan Africa.

    Not only do neoliberal policies have an inconsistent record on growth, but, more indicatively, they have worsened income inequality. A country can have a decent growth rate, but if the benefits of growth are going to a small minority of elites, the population as a whole may be ever more impoverished. Mexico has a 2 percent average growth rate since the passage of NAFTA and more than 60 million poor people. The percentage of the global poor surviving on less than $1 a day who live in Africa has nearly tripled since 1981. By 2030, most of the poor people in the world will be Africans.

    Poverty has remained at about one-half of the Sub-Saharan African population, andincome inequality has grown worse. So the economic growth is clearly going to a small, privileged class, while many government services worsen.

    Guatemala presents a similar story. Its economy has doubled over 30 years, a rate of 2.3 percent annually. But poverty remained constant -- now 54 percent of the population, according to the World Bank, and growing -- and inequality has changed little over 20 years. In Mexico, more than half of its 122 million people live in poverty -- which is comparable to the rate of 30 years ago -- and inequality has lessened only slightly.

    These statistics don't reflect how disruptive many neoliberal policies have been, particularly for rural people whose livelihoods are undermined by corporate farming and food processing, among other industries, which may provide a few local jobs but also use up resources and create significant pollution. At the same time, neoliberal agreements demand that government spending be reduced, which may affect access to health and education, among other services.

    And there's the violence. Europeans led the assault on Libya -- France was a leader, and the coalition included, most prominently, the United States, Britain, Norway, Canada, Italy, Spain and Qatar. Libya's now a failed state (all the European heroes abandoned them), and a conduit for many of the migrants. Its civil war has spilled over to Mali, another sending country. Syria's civil war is prompting thousands of its refugees to flee their camps, and Europeans have again been prominent supporters of "rebels" who have intensified the conflict (although the Gulf monarchies are the worse outside culprits). And many in Europe were willing partners of the United States in attacking Iraq in 2003, which led to the current ISIS catastrophe and ever more refugees.

    The drug gangs in Mexico and Central America are the source of violence that's driving the constant flow of migrants from those countries, often horrific and deadly violence that is aided by a deeply corrupt officialdom. The drugs, of course, are mainly headed to the United States and its 20 million substance abusers.

    We tend to treat these desperate migrant appearances en masse as sudden, unexpected events, almost like a tornado or tsunami, disconnected from the daily grind of national policy making and bad habits. They are not disconnected. In Africa, the dysfunctionality of African politics is in part a legacy of European colonialism and fostered by Cold War alliances, which were heedless of human rights or economic security for ordinary Africans. A similar dynamic was at work in Latin America. Now the new neoliberal imperium has replaced colonialism, and in many respects it's every bit as destructive.
    So for the Europeans seeing themselves as saviors of the tragically unfortunate boat people, we should say, look homeward angels. You have made the mess. So has America. Until the first world policies change, the third world will keep coming, at all costs.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-t...d&ir=WorldPost

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    Do some of these names sound familiar???
    House Approves U.S.-Canada-Mexico Trade Pact on 234 to 200 Vote, Giving Clinton Big Victory

    By Kenneth J. Cooper
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, November 18, 1993; Page A01

    The House approved the North American Free Trade Agreement last night by a comfortable 234 to 200 vote, giving President Clinton a crucial victory after a bitter debate that crisscrossed party and ideological lines for most of the fall.

    Clinton and his House allies came from behind to wipe out a substantial lead that NAFTA opponents held as the week began. A bipartisan coalition of 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats prevailed over the opposition of 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans and one independent.

    Clinton, speaking from the White House and joined by Vice President Gore and members of the Cabinet, praised the bipartisan House vote: "Tonight I am proud to say we have not flinched. . . . We had to come from a long way back to win this fight." The president offered conciliatory words to his opponents and said NAFTA will "expand our exports, create new jobs and help us assert America's leadership in the global economy."

    The five-volume agreement would create the world's largest free trade zone. Nearly all tariffs and other trade barriers among the United States, Mexico and Canada would come down over 15 years, beginning Jan. 1.

    In the Senate, Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) and Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) have assured the administration of NAFTA's passage there before the Thanksgiving recess.

    In sharp contrast to the approval of Clinton's economic package last summer, which was passed without the vote of a single House Republican, Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (Ga.), usually a confrontational leader, rallied House Republicans to support NAFTA.

    "This is a vote for history, larger than politics, larger than reelection, larger than personal ego," said Gingrich, who is to be his party's House leader in 1995.

    Even though the outcome was no longer in doubt, Majority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), who led the House opposition to the trade pact, made a passionate plea at the end of the day-long debate. "It will cost jobs. It will drive down our standard of living," Bonior said. "If we don't stand up for the working people in this country, who is going to?"

    Opposition was centered in the industrial Midwest: 59 percent of lawmakers from the seven Great Lakes states voted against NAFTA. In Sun Belt and southern states, stretching from Virginia to California, 57 percent supported the agreement.

    Last night's vote culminated an odd political path of a 1992 agreement that Republican President George Bush negotiated to create a free trade zone "from the Yukon to the Yucatan." Bill Clinton tepidly endorsed the pact during last year's campaign.

    Many, even Clinton administration officials, had given up NAFTA for dead, because of a no-holds-barred campaign by organized labor to kill it, and doubted the new president's commitment to the agreement until he gave an impassioned defense of the pact two months ago.

    No U.S. president has lost a trade agreement in Congress since World War II, and NAFTA supporters said it was important to Clinton's ability to negotiate with the rest of Latin American and the world that NAFTA pass. Clinton is scheduled to leave for Seattle today to meet leaders of 15 Asian nations.

    Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari called the vote "a direct rejection of protectionism and of those who fear the future," and Canadian Trade Minister Roy MacLaren said in Seattle that he "welcomed the affirmation of an outward-looking attitude by the U.S. Congress."

    But the economic focus of the House debate was a domestic one: NAFTA's possible impact on the U.S. work force.

    Supporters argued that an open trading market with 360 million consumers and an annual output of $6 trillion would increase U.S. exports, thereby creating American jobs.

    "NAFTA is the right thing to do, the productive thing to do, the American thing to do. It creates a vision for the future of our country and of our work force that is based on expansion, growth and change," Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif.) said.

    But opponents predicted that more competition from low-paid Mexican workers would cost less-skilled Americans their jobs.

    "Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the Fortune 500? Or are we on the side of the unfortunate 500,000 who will lose jobs because of this agreement?" Bonior said, stating the populist appeal of NAFTA opponents.

    Most economic studies of NAFTA's impact projected a net gain of jobs in the United States, but those estimates remained in dispute and did not ease anxieties that abound in workplaces across the nation.

    With every House seat up for reelection next year, lawmakers also worried about how their votes would affect their careers. The opposition of organized labor put Democrats at risk of political retribution, while Republicans were threatened more by Texas billionaire Ross Perot's GOP-leaning followers.

    As the long debate closed, House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.), who is retiring next year, dismissed Perot and leading NAFTA opponents Patrick J. Buchanan and Ralph Nader as "the Groucho, Chico and Harpo of NAFTA."

    Clinton congressional liaison Howard Paster and his deputies worked to hold votes needed to assure victory and throughout the day undecided legislators continued to break largely the administration's way, just as they had in recent days.

    The Florida delegation, which had been a stronghold of opposition, swung behind the agreement after special deals with the administration gave greater protection to the state's sugar, citrus and winter vegetable crops from cheaper Mexican imports. Of the state's 23 representatives, 13 voted for NAFTA.

    The Florida agriculture agreements were among a variety of special deals crafted to give hesistant lawmakers political cover from NAFTA critics back home. Opponents criticized, as inconsistent with free trade, deals to protect such crops as asparagus, sugar beets and peanuts from Mexican or Canadian competition.

    Rep. J. Roy Rowland (D-Ga.) endorsed NAFTA after Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy met with him yesterday and agreed to negotiate to limit peanut butter imports from Canada to 1 percent of the amount Americans consume.

    Anti-NAFTA lawmakers condemned other deals – unrelated to trade issues – as pork barrel politics.

    "I didn't come to this House in 1987 to trade my vote away," said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a chief deputy whip. "The people of the 5th Congressional District of Georgia did not send me here to sell them out for a mess of pottage and 30 pieces of silver."

    Other bitter words came from Rep. E "Kika" de la Garza (D-Tex.), a Mexican-American supporter of NAFTA who denounced unnamed colleagues for making "anti-Mexican slurs" and faulting the trade pact for not dictating the terms of Mexico's political and economic systems.

    "They want a Mexican government run by the government of the United States," de la Garza said. "You can't go into Mexico and Americanize it."

    Debate was disrupted twice about 5:30 p.m. by four chanting anti-NAFTA protesters with the environmental group Greenpeace who dropped fake $50 bills to the House floor. Capitol Police arrested the demonstrators for disruption of Congress and doorkeepers cleared that section of the visitors' gallery.

    The unusual party alliances that has defined the NAFTA effort continued yesterday morning when supporters convened a strategy session in a Capitol office of Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.). Participants included Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, White House senior adviser George Stephanopoulos, and Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), a chief deputy whip and aggressive partisan in most floor debates.

    That room is where Ways and Means Democrats met to determine the final shape of major tax, trade and health legislation last July in the absence of Republican lawmakers.

    In other meeting rooms, Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.) had worked with Bonior and other Democrats to try to defeat NAFTA.

    NAFTA split the House Democratic leadership. Speaker Thomas S. Foley (Wash.), Caucus Chairman Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and Vice Chairman Vic Fazio (Calif.) backed the agreement, while Bonior and Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) opposed Clinton on the issue.

    In September, House members returned from August recess stunned by the intensity of labor and Perot-inspired opposition to the trade pact. Several supporters drew back into the undecided column. At one point, Gingrich warned that counts of Republican backers had fallen precipitously.

    To save the agreement from what appeared to be certain defeat, the White House brought in Bill Daley, brother of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, to coordinate NAFTA lobbying. Former representative Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.), a trade specialist, was tapped to court Republican lawmakers.

    Several members said telephone calls to their offices were lopsidedly against NAFTA until Vice President Gore debated Perot on "Larry King Live" on CNN two weeks ago.

    Frenzel said that momentum shifted to the White House "when the vice president undressed Ross Perot. A lot of things were cooking up to that time, and that had a cumulative effect. But if you were looking for one event, you have to give the prize to the vice president."

    Perot, speaking to reporters shortly before last night's vote, lambasted the White House for buying votes and predicted that passage of the trade pact would ignite a huge membership drive for his organization, United We Stand America.

    "No votes were changing until the pork started flowing," said Perot, who labeled the White House's use of enticements as "absolutely corrupt."

    Perot predicted that both parties would pay a price at the polls in the 1994 congressional elections, and that the anger of working Americans could lead to cancellation of NAFTA in 1995.

    He also said he would oppose Clinton's health reform plan with the same vigor with which he fought NAFTA.

    "I'm disappointed in my government," Perot said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/tr111893.htm

    NAFTA, an Assesment. E book.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=eb...0NAFTA&f=false
    Last edited by Newmexican; 04-22-2015 at 11:42 AM.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    Bush used "Fast Track" authority to sign this deal and Clinton added to it and got it passed. This is a good case for denying Obama Fast Track authority on trade deals.



    Remarks at a Meeting With Hispanic Business Leaders in Houston, Texas
    April 8, 1991
    Thank you all very much. And Miguel, thank you for your leadership for the Greater Houston Partnership. And to all of you who managed to get through security and struggle in here, why -- [laughter] -- apologies for the delay, but I'm sure glad to see you.


    Even though these lights are bright, I can see many, many friendly faces out there, people with whom I've worked for one cause or another over the years. You have this wonderful way of making a guy feel at home. So, thank you for coming. Lionel Sosa, I love those ads. They're terrific. I believe they're going to be very effective. And I thank you for your energy and your expertise and also would thank all of those who were helping you on this project.

    To my old friend Bob Mosbacher, our able Secretary of Commerce, I'm glad to see him. He's slightly jet lagged out, having just returned from Japan on yet another mission to try to encourage our exports, a mission in favor of free and fair trade -- something we must continue to press for, whether it's halfway across the world or whether it's in relation to our own neighbors to the south. And Bob is doing a great job, a leadership role in fighting for free trade because he knows as I do, and as all of you do, that the freer the trade is, the more job opportunities there are for the people of the United States of America, say nothing of our trading partners. And so, I'm glad to see him back from his mission.

    I've been looking forward to this meeting today. We've had a series of these, as some of you know. Some have attended one in Washington, then we had one out in California, and now this. Because I do want to discuss with you two issues that are vitally important to all of us: America's ability to compete in the global marketplace and our ability to negotiate with our trading partners. That's what's at stake right now. I've said many times that the hard work of freedom awaits us. And now, I'm asking for your help in that challenge.

    I love the way that Mexico's very able President Carlos Salinas talked yesterday about the vision -- the vision of free and fair trade between the two countries. It's a vision that we share. Last month, I asked Congress to support this Fast Track authority in trade negotiations. You see, Fast Track is a way of assuring our trading counterparts that the agreements that they reach with us at that bargaining table, the one they reach with our negotiators will be the same ones that Congress has a chance to vote on, up or down.

    Some are alleging Congress has no say. And that's simply not true. Fast Track doesn't affect Congress' power to accept or reject trade agreements. But it does prevent these 11th-hour changes to agreements that have been hammered out, changes that force everyone to start all over again.

    We need Fast Track authority to pursue vital trade objectives: the North American free-trade agreement, the Uruguay round, and the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. If we lose our Fast Track authority, we lose any hope of achieving these three vital agreements, the North American free-trade agreement, the Uruguay round, and the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. We lose trade, we lose jobs, and we jeopardize economic growth.

    Here's the key: A vote against Fast Track is a vote against things that we all hold dear, prosperity at home and growth in other lands. It ignores the dramatic and wonderful changes in the world economy. We want to play a leading role in that emerging, exciting world, and we don't want to hide from it. We want to join in the thrilling business of innovation, and we do not want to chain people to outmoded technologies and ideas.

    Right now, we have the chance to expand opportunity and economic growth from the Yukon to the Yucatan. Think of it. The North American free-trade agreement would link us with our largest trading partner, Canada, and our third-largest trading partner, Mexico. It would create the largest, richest trade zone on Earth: 360 million consumers in a market that generates $6 trillion in output in a single year.

    A unified North American market would let each of our countries build on our own strengths. It would provide more and better jobs for U.S. workers. Let me repeat that one: It would provide more and better jobs for U.S. workers. It would stimulate price competition, lower consumer prices, improve product quality. The agreement would make necessities such as food and clothing more affordable, more available to our poorest citizens. It would raise productivity and produce a higher standard of living throughout the continent.

    Let me illustrate the stakes involved in the Fast Track debate by discussing the Mexican component of the North American free-trade agreement. Trade with Mexico has helped both our countries.

    Just 4 years ago, we had a $4.9 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Since then, we've cut that deficit by two-thirds, to $1.8 billion. This turnaround took place in part because Mexico's President believes in free trade. He's slashed tariff rates for some goods from 100 percent to 10 percent. One result: our exports to Mexico have increased 130 percent in the past 4 years. This export boom has created more than 300,000 new jobs here in the United States of America. And each additional billion dollars in exports creates 20,000 new jobs here in the United States.

    I don't have to tell anyone in this room about Mexico's market potential: 85 million consumers who want to buy our goods. Nor do I have to tell you that as Mexico grows and prospers, it will need even more of the goods we're best at producing: computers, manufacturing equipment, high-tech and high-value products.

    Unfortunately, we've got a tough fight ahead of us. Some Members of Congress are concerned about the potential impact that any agreement may have on American jobs, American companies, American exports. Other Members of Congress say that they worry about wage rates or environmental quality, health and safety issues. I believe, I firmly believe, that concern about those very same issues is the strongest argument for support for Fast Track.

    Let me just talk about those concerns. We've already seen what the reduction in Mexican tariffs has done for our exports, American exports to Mexico. A free-trade agreement would eliminate the remaining tariffs entirely. And that would stimulate exports, create new jobs, generate wealth, and hope, I might add, on both sides of the border.

    Let's take a look at the impact on American companies. When trade barriers vanish, goods flow freely across borders. And everybody -- businessmen and workers, to farmers and consumers -- reaps the benefits of growth.

    Consider the environment. The North American free-trade agreement fits into a winning strategy of improving environmental quality. Opponents of Fast Track and the trade pacts forget that prosperity offers the surest road to worker safety, public health, and indeed, environmental quality.

    This administration wants to ensure that Mexican economic growth goes hand in hand with the environmental protection. Our EPA is already assisting the Salinas government with its environmental programs. President Salinas has shown that he's serious about cleaning up the environment by requiring all new cars to have catalytic converters. And recently I'm sure all of us noticed with pride and pleasure the fact that he shut down Mexico's largest oil refinery because, frankly, it was just too much pollution into the air. I know that President Salinas cares deeply about his nation and its people and that he means business when he says he wants to clean up Mexico's air and water.

    And finally, consider the matter of working conditions in Mexico. As our trade with Mexico has grown, so have the wages of Mexican workers. Indeed, Mexican wages have risen very quickly in recent years, with no tangible impact on America's pay scales. That being the case, someone ought to ask the opponents of Fast Track why they oppose prosperity in Mexico.

    Someone should ask why they oppose letting our neighbors enjoy the benefits of progress. These are our friends. These are our neighbors. Ask them what's wrong with increased productivity throughout the whole continent. We benefit when others in this continent prosper. And ask them what's wrong with a more stable Mexico. A free-trade pact would encourage investment, would create jobs, would lift wages, and give talented Mexican citizens opportunities that they don't enjoy today. A stronger Mexico, in turn, means a stronger United States; it means a stronger North American alliance.

    So, you see, we have much to gain from extending Fast Track: a new era of open, free and fair trade, a future of unprecedented economic growth and regional harmony. As with most good things in life, competition involves risk. But we always have been a nation of risktakers, of adventurers. Our forefathers transformed a rough wilderness into an industrial superpower. We've created technologies and products unlike any others produced in human history. We've placed the wisdom of the ages within reach of anyone who can operate a computer.

    The vote on Fast Track is really a vote on what kind of America we want to build. A "yes" vote expresses confidence in American know-how and ingenuity. I say we believe in ourselves.

    I want to make clear that this isn't a partisan political issue. I want to salute those Democratic leaders in the United States Congress, including our own Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who's a key player in this debate, and others in the House -- Speaker Foley -- who have the vision to say this is good for the United States and it's good for Mexico. I'm going to approach this strictly in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical manner. It is too important to get it bogged down in partisan politics. I take great pride in the fact that the relationship between Mexico and the United States has never been better. But it is my view that we owe Mexicans the opportunity that they will get from Fast Track. And when they get that opportunity it is going to benefit the United States of America.

    And so, I will be fighting my heart out to win passage of this. I was very privileged to receive for the second time in Houston the able President of Mexico yesterday. He's doing a first-class job. He's moved that country in ways that some of his critics would never dared dream possible. And I think that it is in our interest now to build on this improved and strengthened relationship to give them and give ourselves the benefit of free and fair trade.

    So, as we join a world that is linked primarily by economic -- not military -- competition, we have nothing to fear except the fearmongers themselves. They seem to be the only ones who haven't learned lately that defeatism produces defeat, while confidence and self-reliance produce greatness. We've got to seize the opportunities that this new world economy offers us. And with your help, I am absolutely convinced that we will do it.

    So, once again, thank you for coming. And I pledge to each and every one of you that this goal is so important to the United States that it will be priority with me, with Secretary Mosbacher, with every other member of the Bush administration in Washington, DC. We are going to win this fight. But we need your help. Thank you all very, very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 8:30 a.m. in the Evergreen Room at the Houstonian Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Miguel San Juan, vice president, world trade division, Greater Houston Partnership; Lionel Sosa, who produced a video shown prior to the President's remarks; Secretary of Commerce Robert A. Mosbacher; President Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico; Senator Lloyd Bentsen; and Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19449

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    NO MORE BUSHES OR CLINTONS

Similar Threads

  1. Migrant crisis expands north from border, into arid Texas wilderness
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-21-2014, 01:50 PM
  2. Canada’s Economic Collapse and Social Crisis: Class War and the College Crisis
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 12:03 AM
  3. Europe Credit Crisis Stage Two, Bank, Sovereign Debt Crisis
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-20-2010, 04:56 PM
  4. Sovereign Debt Crisis: Greek Economic Crisis Coming to US
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-13-2010, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •