View Full Version : delete
zippygaloo
01-15-09, 14:06
delete
ThirdWatcher
01-15-09, 14:14
Mr. Rangel has been trying to reinstate the draft for years, but there is little interest in doing so. Even the military isn't interested in reinstating the draft.
decodeddiesel
01-15-09, 14:52
Time to dust off that old selective service card :D
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-15-09, 15:03
Their thought is that if everyone has a kid in the military, people will in general be less belicose and wars won't be fought. After Reding Victor Davis Hanson's books, I think that they will get a different response. Instead of protracted wars, we'll see and emphasis towards more brutal, fast interventions. If we can't get it done in 12 months, we'll just pound harder. There will also be a push to use surrogates and technology/Unmanned technology to fight less bloody (on our side, more bloody on theirs). That is until the lefties tighten the power to start wars, which at that point, our enemies will know that not only will we not fight a protracted war, we won't start one, and we are back to the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Wait till they lose the youth vote!! My thinking is that they will tie this into the national "volunteer"program.
Victor Davis Hanson is great. I really enjoy his columns and guest spots on the Hewitt Show.
Or as a buddy of mine have come to say - VDH FTW.
Regarding Rangell. Same old same old.
One of the relatively obscure ideas of the Democratic party before the last election was that young folks ought to serve a couple of years of 'public service'. I didn't hear a word about it until an acquaintance who is of that view brought it up.
Blinking Dog
01-15-09, 16:19
Mr. Rangel has been trying to reinstate the draft for years, but there is little interest in doing so. Even the military isn't interested in reinstating the draft.
The Dems (Rangels party) aren't interested either.
From what I read, Rangel isn't really trying to re-instate the draft either. He's trying to prove some point of his. That is, he thinks the military is disproportionately made up of minorities who are now dying in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of rich white folk. Of course, last I checked this was a volunteer military so I don't see how you can make that argument. And I've yet to see demographic statistics to prove his point. The data probably doesn't actually support his cause. But that never stopped a Dem. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. :rolleyes:
zippygaloo
01-15-09, 16:34
Rahm Emmanuel's "Mandatory Civil Service" is a crock too. Check into what he wants to do there. Funny how he's no longer in the public eye after being connected to Blogojevich. I have to tell you Obama isn't even in office yet and it seems as if every person he choosing for positions has some kind of issue.
I think the fact that Obama uses that fake "Office of the President Elect" seal and other crap tells us a lot about the guy. IMPOSTER!
rubberneck
01-15-09, 16:40
Rangel's idea of re-instating the draft is built on the incorrect notion that soldiers come disproportionately from lower income families. That has been proven to be false but Chuckie refuses to accept reality.
Politics aside.
Two to four years military service would do the young people of this country
a great deal of good.
That's provided it's conducted fairly across the board and no bullshit
"deferments" for college or because you're rich.
zippygaloo
01-15-09, 17:00
Politics aside.
Two to four years military service would do the young people of this country
a great deal of good.
That's provided it's conducted fairly across the board and no bullshit
"deferments" for college or because you're rich.
A lot of things could do the young people good, for instance turning off the damn television. Mandating service isn't the best way to change our youth.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to fight next to anyone that didn't want to be there! Just my two cents.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to fight next to anyone that didn't want to be there! Just my two cents.
Even in a volunteer military there are always those who don't want to be there.
Anyone whose spent any time in the military knows that.
Arguments exist both pro and con on volunteer service.
With a draft you get a better cross section of American society.
It's a fact that a disapportionate number of Blacks and poorer
Whites have died in war since the all-volunteer force.
It's time to spread the wealth, so to speak.
Its always the Dems who do this yet the Republicans get blamed.
I am against forced servitude to the state, but if called Id still go. I personally wouldnt want to fight beside a draftee, theres already too many who just wanted college and dont want to deploy when needed etc;
To the rest of the men, and the good draftees my hats off to thee!
Yeah, you are right. I personally haven't spent any time overseas with anyone that wasn't willing to fight. BUT, I have heard of stories about other people. What about the guy from 101st that threw a grenade in someone's tent in the beginning of OEF.
..... I personally wouldnt want to fight beside a draftee....
Some of this country's greatest military heroes were draftees.
Some of this country's greatest military heroes were draftees.
And thats why I said
To the rest of the men, and the good draftees my hats off to thee!
because I know that. Dad was gonna be drafted into the Army so he Joined the Marine Corp, was shot once and blown up twice, did 2 tours in 'Nam got the Bronze star w V and a Silver Star and then after the USMC said bye bye, he Joined the Airforce
Service guarantees citizenship.... There is some truth in that statement although it's a light hearted movie line.
I'm with JB. School after the age of 15 is a repetitive babysitting service. Put the kiddos in a mandatory military structured learning environment till the age of 18. Learning skills as well as earning a higher education. Then, at the age of 18 they can decide to continue there service voluntarily within their skills and/or move on to combat. If they leave, at least they gained skills, served in a support role for the men over 18, learned structure, etc. etc. They would be gtg into the business world at the mental level of 25 year olds today. I could go on.
That's my first run at the idea. I await the flame fest.
1859sharps
01-15-09, 19:40
In his book About Face, Col. Hackworth talks about draftees often not being all that interested in a military career. As such, his opinion was a draftee is more likley to call BS on something vs someone who is trying to make a career. This can be a good thing. Also, draftee does not also automatically equal crappy soldier. History is full of draftee's that stepped up to the challenge.
If ask to vote on starting up the draft again, I am not so sure I would vote yes at this time. But draftees in the military isn't always a bad thing. Assuming there isn't a 1001 ways to avoid being drafted.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-15-09, 19:43
I see some possible merit in this.
It's a fact that a disapportionate number of Blacks and poorer Whites have died in war since the all-volunteer force.
Huh? I'd sure like to see some facts...source?
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f268/LWMcVay/Imcallingbullshit-2.jpg
School after the age of 15 is a repetitive babysitting service.
Oh, try and take my kiddos. I don't think you would like the results of that.
Oh, try and take my kiddos. I don't think you would like the results of that.
Easy killer. Who's trying to take your kids? Just churning a rough thought into text for conversation. I have kids myself. There is no denying that attempting to instate something like what I mentioned in today's world simply wouldn't work for reasons too many to number.
My thought, is to make it like HS. School is compulsory for the most part. Why not change the focus is what I was getting at. Not shipping 15 year olds off to another state to make shoes in a sweat shop.
bigthunder223
01-15-09, 21:44
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!
Only when the demand of war outweighs the availability of soldiers,should we consider discussing such things.
Who's trying to take your kids? Just churning a rough thought into text for conversation. I have kids myself. There is no denying that attempting to instate something like what I mentioned in today's world simply wouldn't work for reasons too many to number.
My thought, is to make it like HS. School is compulsory for the most part. Why not change the focus is what I was getting at. Not shipping 15 year olds off to another state to make shoes in a sweat shop.
Well, in your scenario the government is. Compulsory military education for a minor smacks of Hitler Youth. No way pard. Ain't happening.
As an adult, thats a whole nuther league and worthy of discussion. Kids are off limits. Its bad enough the crap they feed them now in government schools.
Well, in your scenario the government is. Compulsory military education for a minor smacks of Hitler Youth. No way pard. Ain't happening.
As an adult, thats a whole nuther league and worthy of discussion. Kids are off limits. Its bad enough the crap they feed them now in government schools.
The current view of "kids" reference their age has changed quite a bit from decades ago. This is byproduct of current culture and the departure from...................well... values, responsibility, education, etc.
My grandmother was married at 13 and already was a contributing factor to her household, both financially and physically.
Adult/kid is very relative.
The government "takes" your children to school don't they? Unless you are homeschooling and even then there is mandate to educated them within the educational guidelines set forth by.... wait for it.... the government.
My point is, if we are already going to submit to government mandated education (which we do) why not change the focus towards something that not only supports the individual but also the country.
Oh and.. yes Hitler youth was EXACTLY what I was getting at.... :rolleyes:
I am with ZDL on this. I would rather decrease the amount of so-called "education" aka conditioning in the public schools in exchange for something--anything--that smacked of adulthood. For the most part any time spent in public schools after age 16 through 4 years of college is just an extended adolescence and of damn little value in a real world sense. With the economy as it is and college expenses where they are it's going to be interesting to see if the (shrinking) middle class is going to be able or willing to indulge its kids in four more years of goofing off for a questionable payoff.
By way of experience I got my draft notice almost instantaneously upon graduation in 1965. Can't say as I liked doing a hitch as an EM but the truth was it did me a hell of a lot of good then and ever since. The military may not really want or need directionless kids but there's not much denying that it would probably do a lot of them quite a bit of good. Not much else is...
The truth is that by the time kids are, say, 16, they are capable of doing a lot more than this culture wants them to do. My son soloed a Cessna 150 on his 16th birthday (with Dad chewing his lip on the ground). I work with kids some of the time, and right now with some 12 year olds who are way ahead of some so-called adults I could name. They have a lot of potential, and it doesn't need to be wasted keeping their minds and bodies coasting in neutral--so they can be easily manipulated the rest of their lives.
Ideally parents should be making a lot of this happen, including those doing home schooling. I'd rather have less than more government involvement, and more rather than less choice. Less of the "village" (:mad:) and maybe more of Johnny Tremain.
Anything that will give us more thoughtful, disciplined, self-reliant young men and women is to be encouraged.
I used to be of the mindset that we really don't need a draft as the volunteer military seems able to get the job done and I don't want to serve with someone who doesn't want to be there. Having said that we did successfully fight WWI, WWII with a draft and some would say the Korean War as well except for the politics and U.N. But, on the other hand seeing all of these 18-22 year olds wasting away at Mc Rats, Walmart, etc..etc..doing nothing with their lives I wonder if a few years of military service and some exposure to the outside world wouldn't be such a bad thing. All too often kids want to stay home, suck on the parental tit as long as possible, hang out with their friends and do alot of nothing.
I think that my time in the military has aided me through most of my life (especially since I enlisted on my 17th birthday) and I grew up quickly. I wouldn't be where I am today doing what I do without having served.
And if anyone thinks that there are alot of poor whites and minorities dying in Iraq or A'stan I think you need to look alot harder at those names and where they came from. I don't buy it at all. I have met people that grew up in the rich areas of So Cal, Florida and New York and those that lived in West Virginia, Bumpkinville, Texas and everywhere in between.
Like JBntx said- Let's spread the wealth around.
Army Chief
01-16-09, 05:07
It's a fact that a disapportionate number of Blacks and poorer Whites have died in war since the all-volunteer force.
I do not believe this to be an accurate statement; that said, the issue here is not who is dying in our wars, but who is enlisting in our ranks. It is true that the kid from a more affluent home may be more likely to go to college, whereas one without the same level of opportunity may opt for the military, but a lot of those college kids go through officer-producing schools and end up serving -- and going to war -- anyway.
To suggest that our battle deaths disproportionately affect those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale is to ignore the fact that the military affords a regular paycheck, as well as training and education opportunities, to many who would otherwise have few prospects at all. Yes, many of these people do enter the service, and many of them will go into harm's way at some point, but the risk exposure there is not disproportionate -- and the notion that minorities bear a heavier burden here has been disproven many times over.
It is controversial to say so, but the fact is that whites are more likely than any minority group to volunteer for combat arms jobs, while minorities -- and most especially blacks -- overwhelmingly pursue combat support jobs (with better correlation to real world jobs after the service). We need all of them, so that is certainly not a disparaging remark, but I grow weary of ill-informed minority leaders lamenting how their constituents are being sent to fight some other ethnic group's war. That is ridiculous, divisive and unfounded.
AC
The current view of "kids" reference their age has changed quite a bit from decades ago. This is byproduct of current culture and the departure from...................well... values, responsibility, education, etc.
And your answer is more government brainwashing. Yeah, thats worked in the past.:rolleyes:
Adult/kid is very relative. :
Negative Ghost Rider. <18 - minor >18 - adult
The government "takes" your children to school don't they? Unless you are homeschooling and even then there is mandate to educated them within the educational guidelines set forth by.... wait for it.... the government. :
No they don't take my kids. Educational guidelines are fine - no problem with that. The problem is when teachers either exceed that guideline by inputing their own brand of bullshit that I don't agree with, or they barely teach up to that guideline so the kid can pass a state mandated minimum test.
Oh and.. yes Hitler youth was EXACTLY what I was getting at....
I knew you would like that. ;)
Anything that will give us more thoughtful, disciplined, self-reliant young men and women is to be encouraged.
I agree with that statement. I just don't think heaping more government mandated requirements on a broken system is the answer. Its akin to throwing more cargo on the back of a broken down pickup truck - it still ain't working.
Its such a flawed idea I don't even know where to start. The good thing is, it ain't going to ever happen in the current climate.
Sparta we are not.
Service guarantees citizenship.... There is some truth in that statement although it's a light hearted movie line.
Actually, it was from an excellent book of political philosophy, written as a science fiction novel, by Robert Heinlein. Unfortunately, it was also made into a crappy movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers
It is controversial to say so, but the fact is that whites are more likely than any minority group to volunteer for combat arms jobs, while minorities -- and most especially blacks -- overwhelmingly pursue combat support jobs (with better correlation to real world jobs after the service). We need all of them, so that is certainly not a disparaging remark, but I grow weary of ill-informed minority leaders lamenting how their constituents are being sent to fight some other ethnic group's war. That is ridiculous, divisive and unfounded.
AC
AC, its not controversial at all. What you say is the truth and the truth stands alone. Its the ears that hear the truth that make it controversial.
I've heard that same old minority dying for the white man BS since the volunteer army started. Typical Leftard propoganda.
to those of you who actually HAD a draft card, you'll remember that not everyone who was eligible, was called up.
in July of '73 I was classified A1, not eligible for deferment, but thankfully our little difficulty was winding down right about then and I was never called.
so, what the purpose of Rangel doing this now seems little more than political games and I personally think there ought to be a law against professional time and resource wasting...
I do not believe this to be an accurate statement; that said, the issue here is not who is dying in our wars, but who is enlisting in our ranks. It is true that the kid from a more affluent home may be more likely to go to college, whereas one without the same level of opportunity may opt for the military, but a lot of those college kids go through officer-producing schools and end up serving -- and going to war -- anyway.
To suggest that our battle deaths disproportionately affect those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale is to ignore the fact that the military affords a regular paycheck, as well as training and education opportunities, to many who would otherwise have few prospects at all. Yes, many of these people do enter the service, and many of them will go into harm's way at some point, but the risk exposure there is not disproportionate -- and the notion that minorities bear a heavier burden here has been disproven many times over.
It is controversial to say so, but the fact is that whites are more likely than any minority group to volunteer for combat arms jobs, while minorities -- and most especially blacks -- overwhelmingly pursue combat support jobs (with better correlation to real world jobs after the service). We need all of them, so that is certainly not a disparaging remark, but I grow weary of ill-informed minority leaders lamenting how their constituents are being sent to fight some other ethnic group's war. That is ridiculous, divisive and unfounded.
AC
I've never seen the data, but I believe that you are correct.
When the argument is about an unpopular conflict, the left takes the position that minorities are disproportionately in harm's way. When the argument is about equal opportunity in the ranks (I suppose such relatively mundane topics come up more often during peacetime...), the left tends to point out that there are more <ahem> "white" people in SF, Naval Special Warfare, Rangers, or serving with commissions in fighter cockpits, SSBN's, or what have you. Hard to fathom how both scenarios could be true at the same time.:confused:
IMO it'd do many (most?) young people a world of good to get some exposure to the military. I wonder if a good compromise might be something like this: at age 18 one registers for Selective Service. When and if one is drafted, one serves a short period for basic training and individual training in some support function. Volunteers for combat arms jobs might get that kind of training instead. Maybe they serve with designated reserve formations for several months to get some real world training. Then, they are done. They go into something like the IRR and then get on with their lives- schooling, jobs, whatever.
IMO it'd be a disaster to make such service, even such abbreviated service, mandatory for all. I also think it'd be bad to force such draftees to serve in regular combat arms formations. I am not expert, but I think the AFV structure is a part of why our military is so good. Just my .02.
HAMMERDROP
01-21-09, 02:52
to those of you who actually HAD a draft card, you'll remember that not everyone who was eligible, was called up.
in July of '73 I was classified A1, not eligible for deferment, but thankfully our little difficulty was winding down right about then and I was never called.
so, what the purpose of Rangel doing this now seems little more than political games and I personally think there ought to be a law against professional time and resource wasting...
My Dad pushed and pushed for me to just enlist although the 'lottery' has ceased a few months after I registered, in the end I was still drinkin' beer down at the lumber yard at night every night ...32 years later, it is the one thing I wished I would have done. Total regret and an inner longing an unfillable void.
If anybody has read Ann Coulters book 'Guilty' she seems to have hit the nail true. I feel a draft would give all this misguided youth a direction. Single Mothers try their damndest to raise men but do not, they cannot, are not hardwired the same as males so Mom 'does her best' but junior is still wearing orange on a felony B&E... but I think a draft would redirect our countries lost youth.
Especially since Obama did state during one of his campaign speeches last summer at the behest of his speech writers no doubt so he could avoid the topic that the 'Surge' was successful. He stated he (sorry no links or soundbytes) would 'revamp' the Military to focus on the Hindu Kush (OBL) mountain range but unless he will get many many 3 or 4 timers willing to go fight in Afghanastan who dont want to rotate home.
While lines form en masse outside of buildings holding auditions for American Idol, if those were only recruiting depots.
Which indicates to me the offhanded suggestion of a draft coming down the pike not because somebody feels they can be the next Idol. Just look at the volume of potential recruits/draftees.
Am I the only person who feels a man who has never learned what 'NO' means is never quite the man he could have been, and right now in this society our male youth mostly have only one place to learn the discipline it takes to deal maturally and with conscience to overcome todays challeges... just my 2cents worth
Michael
Rahm Emmanuel's "Mandatory Civil Service" is a crock too.
Sounds like a blatant violation of the 13th Amendment to me. But this is the federal government afterall, and a liberal administration that thinks it has a mandate. I guess those pesky amendments will have to be brushed aside in the name of "progress."
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
01-21-09, 11:40
Actually, it was from an excellent book of political philosophy, written as a science fiction novel, by Robert Heinlein. Unfortunately, it was also made into a crappy movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers
Heinlein also said:
"Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!"
And as usual he was right.
If anybody has read Ann Coulters book 'Guilty' she seems to have hit the nail true. I feel a draft would give all this misguided youth a direction. Single Mothers try their damndest to raise men but do not, they cannot, are not hardwired the same as males so Mom 'does her best' but junior is still wearing orange on a felony B&E... but I think a draft would redirect our countries lost youth.
I call bullshit on that statement. I know a number of single mothers who've raised damn good sons; nothing "hard-wired" about it. I'm lucky enough to be in a position that if it was "hard-wired", I'd be studying it.
Our military is not supposed to be a self-improvement course or social experiment. It's supposed to be a fighting force. Military service is what you make of it, and there are plenty of bad eggs coming out of service to support this.
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw, thank you for illustrating that point. Here is another point of view to consider, by Daniel Webster in 1814:
"In granting Congress the power to raise armies, the people have granted all the means which are ordinary and usual, and which are consistent with the liberties and security of the people themselves, and they have granted no others... A free government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free government without adequate provisions for personal security is an absurdity; a free government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man."
Maybe more to the point:
"I almost disdain to go into quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine [of military conscription] upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from substance of a free government."
Conscription (a draft), is an affront to the notion that we're a free people. My life is my own, not my government's to play with as it wants.
-B
I call bullshit on that statement. I know a number of single mothers who've raised damn good sons; nothing "hard-wired" about it. I'm lucky enough to be in a position that if it was "hard-wired", I'd be studying it.
Our military is not supposed to be a self-improvement course or social experiment. It's supposed to be a fighting force. Military service is what you make of it, and there are plenty of bad eggs coming out of service to support this.
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw, thank you for illustrating that point. Here is another point of view to consider, by Daniel Webster in 1814:
"In granting Congress the power to raise armies, the people have granted all the means which are ordinary and usual, and which are consistent with the liberties and security of the people themselves, and they have granted no others... A free government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free government without adequate provisions for personal security is an absurdity; a free government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man."
Maybe more to the point:
"I almost disdain to go into quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine [of military conscription] upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from substance of a free government."
Conscription (a draft), is an affront to the notion that we're a free people. My life is my own, not my government's to play with as it wants.
-B
Couple things. First let me say I respect your intelligence and believe that you simply overlooked the following.
You are confusing an idea with a thing reference the military and it's teaching ability. It isn't the military as a thing, it's the lessons taught. If school, which we can agree IS a learning environment, can accomplish the same, then so be it. If at home it can be done... then so be it. Because it is too often NOT done in school and house holds, the military becomes the place (after 2 or more failures at other places) where this learning happens for most people.
Lastly, because you (I infer)understand the sacrifice of things such as time, comfort, and life for the protection of your country.. of course mandated military service is a nasty, disgusting, and insulting idea. You aren't the norm. You being in psychology, I'm sure we could discuss "normal" till the cows come home but I hope you grasp my meaning.
Going back to what I've said previously in this post. Do you have problem with the ideas I set forth?
he keeps doing this and is doing it again to try to pull focus away from other corruption he is into
You are confusing an idea with a thing reference the military and it's teaching ability. It isn't the military as a thing, it's the lessons taught. If school, which we can agree IS a learning environment, can accomplish the same, then so be it. If at home it can be done... then so be it. Because it is too often NOT done in school and house holds, the military becomes the place (after 2 or more failures at other places) where this learning happens for most people.
The purpose of the military is not as an instructional institute, though. Yes, people like to pretend it is and use it as such (many of those who currently wear a uniform had no expectation of actually going to war, just in acquiring skills), but that doesn't necessarily make it so. While I agree that increasing the effectiveness of learning principles is always a good idea, I disagree that the military should be teaching for the sake of teaching. Your suggestion (this one (https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=289117&postcount=18)?) would require a huge doctrine shift for the military and public education systems at both local and federal level.
It is one idea and it could work. Whether it is better is a pretty big unknown. Private instruction must be accounted for. Hierarchy must be established between local education systems and (I presume) the military institution responsible for this higher-level education. While it doesn't count as conscription, it's border-lining it and can very easily switch over. I think reorganizing the current education system might be the better option overall. However, I can be down with a sort of "jump start" program for kids who want access into public service positions at whatever level and in whatever capacity (non-military), but I would integrate it into any college receiving public financial aid. Have classes that are sort of primers for what they would actually be doing as a civil servant of whatever kind they're interested in (maybe even create an ROTC-like program).
In my opinion, worth what was paid for it, it seems like military service is a different animal than most other types of civil service. Most jobs that exist in the civilian world seem to have a parallel in the military world, but they're still geared differently. In the civilian world, the bottom line seems to matter more. In the military world, the focus is on keeping the spearhead sharp. The military shouldn't be geared towards "creating better citizens". It should be geared towards "creating better Airmen/Marines/Sailors/Soldiers".
-B
QuickStrike
01-21-09, 16:28
I dunno, a draft would be SOOOOOO freakin' sweet.
All of Obama's college-age nuthuggers would commit suicide by swallowing a frisbee or something. :cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.