+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006

    DDT and United Nations

    Doctor Arata Kochi was the head of the World Health Organization to eradicate tuberculosis.
    It is widely reported that erratic behavior and domineering influence caused many problems in the organization before he was forced out.
    He is now in charge of the project to eradicate malaria in Africa and is insisting on using massive amounts of DDT to kill mosquitoes.
    Some people say that because while he was there the number of TB cases fell is evidence that he did a good job.
    They do not give any weight to the increased effectiveness of new drugs, the improved distribution network and education. These same supporters never acknowledge the increased involvement of those most at risk, improved infrastructures and general rise in lifestyle resulting in the drop in TB cases.
    They also do not recognize the fact that as the organization he led broke up correct statistics were no longer kept.
    On paper it looks like everything is going well but who can say because there doesn’t seem to be anyone keep accurate track of what happened or what is happening with TB.
    In a terrifying move Doctor Arata Kochi has shown up as head of the Malaria project that is being sponsored by the World Health Organization.
    He is forcefully advocating the increased use of DDT in third world countries. Even though other pesticides would be more appropriate to control the mosquito populations Doctor Arata Kochi is determined to use DDT.
    DDT is a very dangerous chemical.
    It will kill all insects and impact the entire food chain.
    Fish, birds and animals will lose a major part of their diet.
    People that need game to live will starve.
    It causes cancer in humans.
    It causes mothers to have premature births and to spontaneously abort babies.
    It causes babies to be born with horrible birth defects. It is know as a mutagen. The word mutagen means ‘monster-maker’.
    DDT is manufactured in India, Communist China and though it is not used in the United States it can be and is manufactured there for sale elsewhere. It is cheap to make and is a very profitable product.
    India, Communist China and the United States are in favor of Doctor Arata Kochi’s idea regarding DDT. They support the World Health Organization in forcing the idea on poor nations to use DDT.
    Malaria kills a great many people each year. A common number given is that 800,000 African children die from it each year.
    Doctor Arata Kachi has been quoted as saying that he does not want to fail.
    It seems he is willing to spray a chemical that kills insects, birds, animals and humans in order to fulfill his apparent destructive desire.
    Many nations that are suffering from this scourge are also at war. They are using guns and ammunition that has been manufactured in Communist China, the United States, Russia and Europe. These wars are being fought over natural resources. The reason there is fighting over the natural resources is because Communist China, the United States, Russia and Europe are paying a lot of money to take the natural resources.
    It has become impossible to hide the misery that these wars and this exploitation has caused.
    There is a general hysteria to do something about it.
    Stopping the sale of weapons from so-called rich nations to poor nations would alleviate much of the suffering. Paying honest prices for the natural resources that are being taken - like oil from Nigeria, gold from the Congo and other items - including fish and agricultural products - would also alleviate much of the suffering.
    The local governments could then do more to ensure that the people are living in safe and clean environments.
    Spraying DDT may bring short term relief but as was discovered in the United States and Italy it will bring long term misery.
    The mosquitoes also will become resistant to the chemical.
    They have already done so in many locations.
    The mosquitoes that DDT is most effective against on an ongoing basis are not the ones that carry malaria. The ones that carry malaria in Sri Lanka have already obtained resistance. DDT is no longer used in Sri Lanka because the mosquitoes and other insects there have already mutated into forms that it will not effect.
    DDT still attacks humans in Sri Lanka along with animals that live there - both domestic and wild.
    Doctor Arata Kachi, from what I have read, acts in an erratic manner.
    The United States has recently taken a stand against the United Nations and up to now has apparently resisted the activities of the World Health Organization. Now a man is in place who looks like he will destroy the reputation of the World Health Organization completely and possibly pollute large swaths of the earth.
    The short term economic gain provided by spraying for DDT will cause a massive number of birth defects.
    It is possible to eradicate mosquitoes using other chemicals.
    The World Health Organization is giving unfair advantage to chemical companies that manufacture DDT and the DDT impregnated netting. Communist China and the United States stand to profit from this apparent rage of irresponsible behavior erupting from Doctor Arata Kachi.
    Using DDT across Africa to try and eradicate malaria is like using the atomic bomb to eradicate cancer in Japan.
    Anyone alive with cancer at the time of the explosion will die and cancer would be effectively wiped out - but 20 years down the line cancer from radiation will grow up and the people would be in the same state with a different disease.
    If DDT is used to eradicate malaria across Africa without support of alternate chemicals and improved sanitation Doctor Arata Kachi’s solution may provide short term relief - but after he is dead and buried the monstrous results of his fevered activity will plague the world health community for decades and last for centuries.
    The one thing more destructive than the mosquito in fighting malaria today is, in my opinion, Doctor Arata Kachi.
    I hope you will think long and hard about allowing DDT to be used heavily in your nation without further studying the matter and doing everything you can to avoid it.
    Look at a part of the ‘Policy Series’ at the World Health Organization.
    See who funds it?
    1. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
    2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
    3. Unrestricted educational support from Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and Pfizer Inc.
    Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer are international chemical companies specializing in agricultural chemicals and drugs.



    Pfizer took over Pharmacia.
    During the 2002 elections, Pfizer contributed $1.2 million to federal parties and candidates, more than two-thirds going to Republicans. Pharmacia contributed just under $1 million during 2001-02, mostly to Republicans.
    Apparently an FDA medical officer was ordered to delete information on risks of antidepressant drugs.
    The information to be concealed was in records being submitted to Congress. The FDA's Office of Chief Counsel urged him to delete the material.
    Apparently they repeatedly prevented Mosholder from reporting his conclusions that the medications increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior among children.
    Two FDA analyses have concluded that the drugs may double the risk of suicide among some children.
    As far back as 1996, an FDA official had suggested an increased risk of suicide among children taking Zoloft.
    Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) asked why the finding had not been followed up.
    FDA officials stated that a letter sent at the time to Zoloft's manufacturer, Pfizer Inc., is no longer in the agency's files.
    Joe Barton apparently received $10,000 dollars from Pfizer his 2004 campaign.
    Pfizer has also showered cash on Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay and Senator Frist.
    The FDA claims they were worried about frightening families away from buying the drugs. Many industry clinicians believe the drugs are effective.
    Several studies have found that most of the drugs are no more effective than sugar pills.
    The House Ethics Committee recently produced a 72-page report providing a "public admonishment" of both Representative DeLay of Texas and Representative Candice S. Miller of Michigan. (R-Mich.) concerning their improper behavior in pressuring Representative Nick Smith of Michigan to change his vote on the Medicare prescription drug benefit bill.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    We were lied to about DDT. It is safe and effective.

    Without DDT millions of PEOPLE have died. ANimal rights wackos always stress death of insects and fish (which is also not true) but neglect to mention the millions of people that die.

    People first.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    Dangerous DDT

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Planet Gong

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    My Daddy told me about the long days he and Granddad -then with the USPHS-spent, walking swamp and bayou in the American South of the 1930's; Dad with a spray canister of kerosene which lays an oily film on still waters, blocking the breathing of the mosquito larvae, and Granddad with a canister of DDT, which attacks the eggs.

    In the early 1980's, Dad and I discovered a can of commercial DDT, which had come with our family on several changes of housing.
    We wrapped it in a plastic bag, and took it along to the County's Household Toxic Waste collection site.

    DDT is still used in many countries; it continues to kill mosquito eggs, and it continues to collect in the food chain, and kill the eggs of other susceptible species.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    The DDT Ban Myth

    Part 1

    Several anti-environmentalists have claimed that public concern over the effects of DDT after the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring led to a ban on the pesticide in some third world countries in the 1960s. This ban, it is claimed, led to a resurgence in malaria, resulting in thousands of deaths. But in accounts of the war on malaria, such as in Laurie Garrett's The Coming Plague, it is clear that the suspension of spraying programs was unrelated to any environmental concerns. In fact, DDT continued to be the insecticide of choice in the battle against malaria as recently as 1994, some 30 years after the alleged ban, in areas where it was still effective (Curtis). Before considering what actually happened, let's see how some anti-environmentalists described the alleged ban.

    This is how Elizabeth Whelan (Toxic Terror, page 69) described events:

    Why was there an increase in malaria in Ceylon [now called Sri Lanka] after 1964? It is clear that the effects of Silent Spring was not limited to the United States. Following the publication of this book, the use of DDT was discontinued in Ceylon. Epidemic conditions reappeared and it has been estimated that between 1968 and 1969 "considerably more than two million cases occurred," all related to the campaign against DDT.
    Here is how Dixy Lee Ray (with Lou Guzzo) described events (Trashing the Planet, page 69) [note: Ray has the timing wrong, the spraying was stopped in 1964, not the late 60s]:

    Public health statistics from Sri Lanka testify to the effectiveness of the spraying program. In 1948, before the use of DDT, there were 2.8 million cases of malaria. By 1963, there were only 17. Low levels of infection continued until the late 1960s, when the attacks on DDT in the U.S. convinced officials to suspend spraying. In 1968, there were one million cases of malaria. In 1969, the number reached 2.5 million, back to the pre-DDT levels. Moreover, by 1972, the largely unsubstantiated charges against DDT in the United States had a worldwide effect. In 1970, of two billion people living in malaria regions, 79 percent were protected and the expectation was that malaria would be eradicated. Six years after the United States banned DDT, there were 800 million cases of malaria and 8.2 million deaths per year. Even worse, because eradication programs were halted at a critical time, resistant malaria is now widespread and travelers could take it home.
    Here is the version of Joseph L. Bast, Peter J. Hill. and Richard C. Rue (Eco-Sanity, page 100):

    But probably the most remarkable demonstration of the health-preserving powers of pesticides was the use of DDT to kill maria-carrying mosquitoes. Thanks to DDT, countries such as Zanzibar (an island off the east coast of Africa) reduced the percentage of their populations infected with malaria from 70 percent in 1958 to under 5 percent in 1964. Then, the DDT spraying program was suspended, and by 1984 the malaria rate was back up to 50 to 60 percent . . .It is probably fair to say that Zanzibar and other African countries would not have suspended DDT spraying if environmentalists had not claimed, without evidence, that DDT posed a significant risk to human health. DDT is still used to combat malaria in some parts of the world, and the decision to suspend spraying in Zanzibar and other areas reflected the judgments of health officials and political leaders as well as environmentalists. Still, the environmental movement must take partial responsibility for halting the use of what many health experts considered to be the greatest lifesaving chemical ever discovered--so great that its inventor, Dr. Paul Muller, was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1948.
    And, most recently by Michael Sanera and Jane E. Shaw in Facts not Fear (pages 202 to 203) (Note:: the book lists the halt in spraying as a consequence of the 1972 US ban on DDT, given the timing this is clearly impossible):

    In at least one country, Sri Lanka, a DDT spraying program, which had virtually eliminated malaria in Sri Lanka, was stopped. When Sri Lanka stopped using DDT, the number of malaria cases rose again to 2.5 million in the years 1968-9.
    There were suspensions in the spraying programs, but they were not the result of any "environmental hysteria". To understand what actually happened, it is necessary to learn about the realities of pesticide use. One of the major problems with using pesticides is that insect populations soon develop resistance to the chemicals. Insects resistant to DDT began appearing one year after its first public health use (Garrett, page 50). As new insecticides were introduced, resistance to them also developed. Much of Silent Spring is a cataloging of reports of resistance to insecticides. With the problem of mosquito resistance to DDT in mind, a plan to eradicate malaria was developed--several years of spraying, accompanied by treating patients with anti-malaria drugs, would be followed by several years of monitoring. Here is how Paul Russell, who would head the eradication effort, explained it in 1956 (Quoted in Garrett, page 48):

    Generally, it takes four years of spraying and four years of surveillance to make sure of three consecutive years of no mosquito transmission in an area. After that, normal health department activities can be depended upon to deal with occasional introduced cases. . . . Eradication can be pushed through in a community in a period of eight to ten years, with not more than four to six years of actual spraying, without much danger of resistance. But if countries, due to lack of funds, have to proceed slowly, resistance is almost certain to appear and eradication will become economically impossible. Time is of the essence [his emphasis] because DDT resistance has appeared in six or seven years.
    Incredible as it might seem, while public health officials were cautiously limiting the usage of DDT, it was being used in increasing amounts in agriculture, especially on cotton, a cash crop (Chapin & Wasserstrom). This heavy use led to resistance among malaria carrying mosquitoes throughout the tropics. In this instance, the unwise use of DDT, rather than improving life, actually resulted in a resurgence of malaria. According to Chapin & Wasserstrom (page 183) "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."

    Not surprisingly, anti-environmentalists ignore or downplay the importance of insect resistance. There is no mention of the problem in Trashing the Planet, Eco-Sanity or Facts not Fear. Toxic Terror, which has a twenty six page chapter on "The DDT Debate", devotes just one paragraph to the issue. There is no mention of the impact of DDT resistance on the war against malaria.

    There were a number of other problems in addition to insect resistance to DDT and other insecticides. The heavy use of anti-malaria drugs started to produce microbes resistant to them. Non insecticide control measures that had greatly reduced the presence of malaria in many areas were discontinued when DDT arrived (Chapin & Wasserstrom). There was a chronic lack of funds. Many countries had to abandon their control efforts, or they diverted funds to other areas when the number of cases of malaria had been reduced to a low level. The United States bankrolled the eradication program starting in 1958, with the assurance that it would only take five years. When the five years was up, the funding was cut off, even though it appeared that the eradication program was working (Garrett). This cut off of funds occurred just before the alleged bans went into effect. Political turmoil also might have had an effect. 1964 was a year of major political turmoil in Zanzibar, the country used as an example in Eco-Sanity. The country gained independence in December 1963, there was a bloody revolt in January 1964, and later that year the country joined with the much lager mainland country of Tanganyika to form the country of Tanzania (Kaplan). Any of these events could have disrupted the malaria control program.

    The eradication program ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it did not work. The mosquitoes had grown resistant to insecticides, and the microorganisms that cause malaria had become resistant to the drugs used against them. In many areas the numbers of cases of malaria greatly exceeded what it was before the effort was started. If events had been different, if DDT had not been used heavily in agriculture and there was no shortage of funds the outcome might have been different. Malaria might have joined smallpox as a disease that had been eliminated from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, such was not the case. As early as 1967 it was clear that the effort had failed, and in 1972 the official policy shifted from eradication to control of malaria.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    The DDT Ban Myth

    Part 2


    DDT was not banned in any developed country till the 1970s (Curtis). It was not banned in the United States, that hotbed of "environmental hysteria", until 1972, and even then there were exemptions for health emergencies and some agricultural uses. The anti-environmental claim that some third world countries that were fighting malaria banned the pesticide back in 1964 stretches our credulity, to say the least. Certainly such a ban would generate a great deal of press coverage, as well as protests from the affected citizens and the international agencies that were trying to eradicate malaria. But the anti-environmentalists produce no such evidence. The only "proof" that is offered that the suspensions were related to environmental concerns was that they occurred after the publication of Silent Spring. But this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of it) fallacy, no cause and effect was established. None of the authors who repeated this claim appear to have considered that there might be an alternative explanation for the halting of the spraying program. Rather than causing deaths, the cautions in Silent Spring about the indiscriminate use of pesticides could have saved many lives.


    Bast, Joseph l., Peter J. Hill, and Richard C. Rue, Eco-Sanity: A common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism, Madison Books, 1994.

    Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962.

    Chapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, "Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India", Nature, Vol. 293, 1981, pages 181 to 185.

    Curtis, C. F., "Should DDT continue to be recommended for malaria vector control?", Medical and Veterinary Entomology, Vol. 8, 1994, pages 107-112

    Garrett, Laurie, The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance, Penguin Books, 1994.

    Kaplan, Irving (editor), Tanzania, a Country Study, The American University, 1978.

    Ray, Dixy Lee & Lou Guzzo, Trashing the Planet: How Science Can Help Us Deal with Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone, and Nuclear Waste (Among Other Things), HarperPerennial, 1990.

    Sanera, Michael and Jane S. Shaw, Facts not Fear: A Parent's Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996. Now in a second edition.

    Whelan, Elizabeth M., Toxic Terror, Jameson Books, 1985.


    Additional reading

    NEW Putting Myths to Bed by Dr Alan Lymbery is the best responce I have seen to the DDT myth makers:

    NEW More DDT myths

    NEW John Quiggin notes that the far right is still recycling nonsence about DDT UPDATE Quiggin has added a clarification of his views on DDT.

    NEW In DDT, Eggshells, and Me Ronald Bailey, a leading "brownlash" author breaks wih the useual "junk science" dogma and shows that DDT and its metabolites did harm bird populations. For more on the topic see Effects of DDT on Birds: Does Dixy Know Something the Experts Do Not?

    NEW DDT and Other Chlorine-Based Chemicals were Banned for a Reason from Exposing the Right

    "Malaria, Mosquitoes and DDT" by Anne Platt McGinn, WorldWatch May/June 2002, pages 10-16.

    Mosquito: A Natural History of our Most Persistent and Deadly Foe, by Andrew Spielman, Sc. D., and Michael D'Antonio, Hyperion, 2001


    The history of malaria

    Whatever Happened to Malaria Eradication?

    See Tim Callahan's "Environmentalists Cause Malaria! (And Other Myths of the "Wise Use" Movement}" The Humanist January/February 1995, pp 10-15 for more on Dixy Lee Ray and malaria.

    See "Do Environmentalists Cause Malaria?" in PR Watch's Panic Attack for more on Elizabeth Whelan, DDT and malaria.


    Written by Jim Norton

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    and then.....check my thread on mycoplasma!?hehe!!just askin....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    I think it is really unfair to use the term ANTI-environmentalists. That my friend is just a rude slanted name. Much like calling pro-life heroes 'anti-abortion'. If you are like me you seek TRUTH. and truth can be hard to find.
    Free Market folk can be VERY pro-environment but detest government getting involved cuase they know government is the WORST at helping the environment.

    I LOVE nature and the planet.. but i also love people and freedom. Science is awful complicated and for you to spew your hate term of anti-environment is VERY intolerant of you.

    arent you liberals supposed to be TOLERANT> i have never ONCE seen a liberal demonstrate this tolerance they talk about.

    so.. fck you and have a nice life.. NOT

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    I can remember back in the sixties living in Houston. Once or twice each week, just after sundown in the sumertime, this truck we called the "mosquito truck" would drive through the neighborhood trailing this huge cloud of white gas behind it. I mean it was big. About thirty feet high, more than a hundred feet long and wider than the street. All us kids would go running out and play getting lost in that cloud. We'd be laughing, our parents would be laughing....man what fun. My brother and I also would just stand on the front bench seat of Dad's 55 Chevy, our hands on the steel dash as he cruised down the road with a cigarette in his mouth. Ah, those were the days.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    I can remember back in the sixties living in Houston. Once or twice each week, just after sundown in the sumertime, this truck we called the "mosquito truck" would drive through the neighborhood trailing this huge cloud of white gas behind it. I mean it was big. About thirty feet high, more than a hundred feet long and wider than the street. All us kids would go running out and play getting lost in that cloud. We'd be laughing, our parents would be laughing....man what fun. My brother and I also would just stand on the front bench seat of Dad's 55 Chevy, our hands on the steel dash as he cruised down the road with a cigarette in his mouth. Ah, those were the days.
    Haha, yeah. When I was little, the local newspaper would gleefully announce the day and time that the "fogger" would be coming to your street, which would deliberately be just after the ice cream truck's arrival. That way, the kids could run after the fogger while licking their dripping cones clutched in one hand and waving there lit punks in the other. Our parents would advise us to rub the fog really well into our skin, so we could enjoy catching lightening bugs all evening with out being bit by those pesky mosquitos.

    Oddly, my kids were all born with human heads. :p

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    DDT has lots of pros and cons. It is very harmful to the environment, especially food webs and bird reproduction, and there is evidence increases risk and spread of cancer. But, it is very cheap to produce and is very effective combating malaria in developing countries.

    There are less damaging insecticides which break down a lot faster than ddt so they do not remain in biomass for long periods of time. The US is the worlds largest producer of DDT. If the government has any sense of responsibility they should start offering subsidies to companies exporting safer insecticides, but whens the last time the government gave a **** about anyone?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2006

    Re: DDT and United Nations

    I am interested in what is going to happen next. Now that it turned out to be an unpopular idea suddenly it is not newsworthy. :confused:

Similar Threads

  1. United Nations And USA Government Email
    By Administrator in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2013, 07:52 PM
  2. How Corrupt Is the United Nations? Beyond Belief
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 07:20 PM
  3. What the United Nations Did This Week
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 06:20 PM
  4. The United Nations of America
    By BVR USA Liaison in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 01:23 PM
  5. The Shame of the United Nations
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-01-2006, 04:48 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 1984, 2001, accounts, accurate, acts, africa, african, age, agen, alive, alleged, allowing, america, american, andrew, animal, animals, anti, arrival, authors, avoid, awarded, babies, bag, balance, ban, banned, bans, based, bed, billion, bit, blocking, bomb, books, break, breaks, bring, brow, buried, called, calling, campaign, cancer, candidates, carry, carson, cash, caused, causing, central, cer, chain, check, chemicals, china, citizens, claims, clean, cli, collection, coming, community, completely, concealed, concerns, condi, continue, continues, contributed, correct, countries, country, county, cream, credible, critical, cruise, daddy, david, days, ddt, dead, death, decades, december, decision, dennis, department, dice, disease, don, double, dow, drew, drop, drugs, due, early, education, effective, elec, electio, entire, environment, error, erupting, europe, evening, experts, explained, explosion, exposing, face, fail, families, family, fda, federal, fee, files, finding, food, for sale, foundation, front, funds, gas, gave, general, give, gold, greatest, halted, hands, head, health, helping, hey, hide, high, horrible, house, housing, houston, html, huge, huma, human, humans, ial, ignore, ill, impact, improved, inc., india, industry, infected, influence, information, insects, inter, international, involved, ion, italy, jim, joe, john, joined, joy, junk, kaplan, kill, kills, lanka, large, laughing, leaders, leading, lee, liberals, lied, line, living, local, long, longer, los, lose, lot, market, massive, mea, medical, medicare, mental, michigan, million, millions, mind, money, monitoring, mosquito, mosquitoes, mosquitos, move, myth, nation, nations, nature, network, newspaper, nice, nick, nigeria, notes, nuclear, number, numbers, official, officials, oil, oily, ongoing, order, ordered, organization, page, pages, paper, par, part, paul, paying, people, peter, pills, plane, plastic, play, policy, poor, popular, pos, post, prescription, prices, prize, product, production, products, protected, public, reason, relief, remember, renewed, reporting, representative, republicans, ress, results, resurgence, richard, rise, risk, robert, roy, russia, safe, sale, sen, sense, shaw, short, shows, silent, site, skin, soo, spent, spring, sri, star, start, starting, stated, states, steel, street, submit, subs, surveillance, suspended, taken, takes, talk, tanzania, ted, terror, testify, texas, the far right, thread, tim, timing, told, tolerance, tor, toxic, track, trashing, truck, united, united states, urged, url, version, wars, waters, wise, working, worldwide, worse, year, years

View Tag Cloud



Posting Permissions

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