I disagree. All countries, peoples, & societies (as well as individuals) have faults. Some seemingly worse.
I think, if being on top is not a fault in and of itself, then certainly attempting to maintain that with force & violence or other dirty means certainly is.
Therefore, personally, and being from the states, I would say the US has possible the most faults. Even if it were that one: attempting to maintain top by force, violence, and/or other dirty means.
Maybe someday we can have equal relationships with all people/s.
I don't know how we can get their other than the means should probably equal the ends or else the ends are not worth getting to.
I don't know. I'm no angel.
Maybe even countries (the 'state') themselves are a fault?
Sounds to me like you want to usher in the kingdom of heaven on earth sukatto.
I am more practical. I think a world without force is a world which has never existed, and never will exist. And that if we try to eliminate it, things will be even worse than they are now.
The idea of gequal relationshipsh doesnft work in families or societies or anywhere else. Some of the greatest crimes in the history of man have been committed by societies which presumably were trying to make everyone equal. gEach according to his ability and each according to his needh is very high minded but is was cover for some of the worst tyranny that ever existed in the history of man.
The genius of the founding fathers of america was in not being naive about the nature of man. They just assumed that there would be bad apples and maniacs thirsting for power. In fact they pretty much operated on the assumption that man is a scoundral. But they were light years ahead of the naivette of the socialists and the communists and in real terms this meant less crime, less blood, less violence.
Man has this dream of the "kingdom of heaven on earth" and perfect equality and cooperation among people ... but I think it is a delusion when it comes to geo politics and everything else. It has certainly thus far shown itself to be a delusion and no society that has ever tried to organize itself by these principles has been sucessful.
I am a firm believer in hierarchy, even when we try to abolish it we find that it is still there. I simply want to make sure that the wisest and the very best are on top because in that way everyone benefits. When they are not, everyone suffers.
Let me clear things up here.
If a A attacked B then perhaps B's use of force might be justifiable.
International law, which the US has signed many international treaties including laws that make the crime against peace illegal, a war of agression, and under the Nuremberg Principles constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow.
If one found themselves "on the top", and let's be conservative here, acting withing the existing legal framework. Being conservative, no need to invent any new law or theory on this stuff. Being conservative if one were attacked they would have the right to use force in response. Acting non-conservatively one might use 'other dirty means' such as invent one's own 'law' for themselves being arrogant and supremacist about it all, be belligerent, attack whomever they felt like and commit war crimes. from which all other war crimes follow.
the rule of law and/or democracy might seem like a pie-in-the-sky kingdom of heaven theory, but we don't give up trying to better our understanding and practice of it. Well, many havn't.
The early Soviet Union proved that the ideals it supposedly stood for could not be forced on from above.
Iraq is showing likewise for democracy. democracy is not top-down by definition anyway.
So maybe you want a democratic (adjective) political system (the other one above is, of course an economic system). Chalmers Johnson says South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan "achieved democracy from below", so maybe they are truer democracies than say, the US?
It is that type of "force & violence or other dirty means" I am thinking of, that is quite well documented in many places, that the US gov't is in fault.
And hypocritical since they always claim to be supporting 'democracy'.
Just because something seemingly always has been - 'violence or force', does not mean it always will be. How many individual people go through their lives without or doing minimal violence? I'm sure few have not killed a mosquitoe or ant...
I will not try to argue that heirarchy does not exist. I would lose for sure.
Just one example: There is of course, a heirarchy of skills. A novice baker has less skills than a baker who has been making pies all her life. But that does not mean the 'master' baker should have all power over the novice baker/student. The 'master' baker should not have the power to order the 'student' to say, do x-rated stuff with them. An obvious abuse of power/knowledge of baking. What would happen if a student's skills were to gain such as to seemingly exceed the skills of the master? Would the 'master' attempt to sabotage the student's goods? Wouldn't that 'master' baker be a jerk? Or if they used violence or other such dirty handed means to ensure their position? Would they be some sort of total piece of toilet flushings?
back to the title of the string:
I don't understand this "fill the vacuum of power" thing.
That it would be filled by someone if the US ended their occupation of Okinawa and/or Japan and/or East Asia, since the cold war has been far over.
It's as if a removal of US tanks and planes and ships from countries X, Y, & Z, this would make some other country 'M' say to themselves, "hey, let's go put our tanks and planes and ships in countries X, Y, & Z".
I do not understand why someone thinks country 'M' would automatically do that. Just because country 'A' wants to maintain over 700 known/acknowledged bases in over 130 different countries doesn't mean countries 'G', 'S', & 'M' want anything similar to it.
I maintain that country 'A' wants to maintain that for economic reasons.
not only what the late & former US prez/general Dwight Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", so pervasive that individual huge military contractors have parts factories in all 50 states so they can argue they need to keep the war economy to keep jobs,
but also to prevent other countries from verying away from a corporate based global economy. the alternative of which does not equal communism or socialism, since corporations are legal entities, are different from 'regular' businesses, and not any sort of 'natural' occurring thing - the corporation is legally constructed. countries that reject foreign corporations in their country or even the corporate legal construct altogether are given some sort of derogatory label and viewed by US (and other corporate elites around the world) as enemies to 'freedom', even though the corporate form itself constructs legal privileges such as limited liability. limited liability is not a right, but a privilege. should you or i have limited liability for stealing from a store or killing someone? no. it's not a right, but a privilege.
US maintainance of bases in Japan helps to protect these privileges from local justice or democracy movements from below around the globe.
It is not China that is a threat to the United States, but 1) war that is a threat to us all, and 2) a false democracy that is really about ensuring privilege under the guise of equality and freedom.
That's rather long-winded, I know,
but i hope it shows that i am not delusioned by any false hope
of a Soviet Union model. But nor am i delusioned into thinking there
is anything remotely close to honor present in the existance of empire.
The DIS-honor of empire is so great that it negates into a black hole and
into an infinate number of continuous black-holes any other possibly existing honors that one might imagine to exist otherwise.
Futhermore,
Iraq is NOT a smudge on the screen.
It is a continuation of what US gov'ts do and have been doing for decades.
The thing with the Bush regime is that it is so blatant and obvious and they are horrible at p.r. Other US administrations are just more subtle about it all.
Ever hear of Iran/Contra?
Or a much shorter response.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but am I correct to assume
that
you don't believe in democracy?
there's been times of relatively little heirarchy.
no reason we can't do this some more
gI want a revolution that changes the very nature of how power is structured and perceived, that challenges all systems of domination and control, that nurtures the empowerment of individuals and the collective power we can wield when we act together in solidarity.h
–Starhawk, US activist and writer
Or a much shorter response.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but am I correct to assume
that
you don't believe in democracy?
there's been times of relatively little heirarchy.
no reason we can't do this some more
gI want a revolution that changes the very nature of how power is structured and perceived, that challenges all systems of domination and control, that nurtures the empowerment of individuals and the
I do not believe nor disbelieve in democracy. Democracy has its strengths and its weaknesses.
But even in a democracy there is hierarchyc there is no way to eliminate it.
The surest way to ruin a great basketball team or a great symphony orchestra would be to demand that everyone should be given an equal voice in governing them and being a part of them.
You can apply the same concept to a society. Trying to make everyone equal leads to a shared mediocraty and would ultimately lead to a dissolution of the society. What happens however is that someone always steps in to "govern the unruly mass" in the name of equal rights and social justice ... ie., Stalin and Mao. And even as throats are being slit, high minded, idealistic, and pompous phrases are being trumpeted in the streets.
To try to eliminate power and hierarchy is to misunderstand the very nature of living organisms. Organisms are either healthy or they are sick. Our society, for all of its freedoms and so called humanitarianism, is one of the sickest societies in the history of man. This is in large part because the organizing principles of our society and culture are insufficent. We have given men plenty of freedom ... but most of them don't know what to do with it.
It is in the nature of our democracy that almost all the wrong people gain power.
gDo not make equal, what is unequalh (Nietzcshe)
I'm not big on sports analogies. sorry.
divisions, win, dominate.
Emphasize the some of the worst aspects of human nature.
some of the aspects. other aspects are caring, solidarity, others...
which you can see in a father not stealing his child's food of the plate,
and nationalism is like a form of solidarity.
Stalin, Mao...,
that's why you really can't impose equality.
Not in SU, not in US. - witness it took 100 years after the ending
of legal slavery for people to really start to get some respect with
the civil rights movement along with their media personalities.
A MLKjr only shows up when there are all sorts of regular people doing things beyond such a media spotlight.
high minded, idealistic, and pompous phrases
Similar to what US gov't is doing now while doing almost Orwellian opposites. As well as previous administrations of the US. For ex: Madeline Albright said,"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Thus making them (us gov't officials) pompous.
heirarchy does exist. one cannot deny this.
Maybe it's more like which heirarchies are legitimate, and which are illegitimate?
The slave and slave master.
clearly illegitimate. at least we now recognize now (at least in the US)
Now, with the distance of reality, the vast majority of people would place that heirarchy on its head and say the slave master was total scum and the slave being the ones that had honor.
That might call into question the idea of force.
If force has to be used to enforce its existance, is the heirarchy legitimate?
Anyway,
How does any of this fit into the idea of
the US deoccupying lands in Japan/and Okinawa.
I guess the US seeks to enforce itself on the top of some ficticious totem pole by force. Which is an illegitimate heirarchy in my eyes. empire, for example, has no honor.
I'm not big on sports analogies. sorry.
divisions, win, dominate.
Emphasize the some of the worst aspects of human nature.
some of the aspects. other aspects are caring, solidarity, others...
which you can see in a father not stealing his child's food of the plate,
and nationalism is like a form of solidarity.
Stalin, Mao...,
that's why you really can't impose equality.
Not in SU, not in US. - witness it took 100 years after the ending
of legal slavery for people to really start to get some respect with
the civil rights movement along with their media personalities.
A MLKjr only shows up when there are all sorts of regular people doing things beyond such a media spotlight.
high minded, idealistic, and pompous phrases
Similar to what US gov't is doing now while doing almost Orwellian opposites.
Thus making them (us gov't officials) pompous.
heirarchy does exist. one cannot deny this.
Maybe it's more like which heirarchies are legitimate, and which are illegitimate?
The slave and slave master.
clearly illegitimate. at least we now recognize now (at least in the US)
Now, with the distance of reality, the vast majority of people would place that heirarchy on its head and say the slave master was total scum and the slave being the ones that had honor.
That might call into question the idea of force.
If force has to be used to enforce its existance, is the heirarchy legitimate?
Anyway,
How does any of this fit into the idea of
the US deoccupying lands in Japan/and Okinawa.
I guess the US seeks to enforce itself on the top of some ficticious totem pole by force. Which is an illegitimate heirarchy in my eyes. empire, for example, has no honor.
Well, I included a symphony orchestra analogy too. In an orchestra hierarchy is not a dirty word. Men do not mind submitting to something as long as that thing has their respect. For example, men in the military generally have better working relationships with their superiors than civilian workers do with theirs. This is in large part because the civilian employers are usually somewhat contemptable men who do not earn respect or loyalty. Ironically, the feelings of freindship, caring and solidarity that you value are more present among military men than among civillians in the western world.
Yes, the current administration has used orwellian propaganda and every other cheap trick it could get its hands on. This group of "conservatives" in my opinion, has probably done more damage to american interests and world prospects than any other administration in the last 100 years.
I disagree with your analysis of sports but I think you are fairly typical of people who think the way to ennoble man is by removing conflict from his life. 1st., It cannot be done. 2nd ., even if conflict and suffering were removed from manfs life, man would soon become contemptable because of it.
The white heat of suffering and conflict is the furnace out of which the best things grow. The real horror of the modern world is not suffering or conflict but boredom, ennui, and sterility.
There are plenty of slaves in our world today, we just donft call them that anymore. 1 in 6 indians in India is born to the lowest caste, he is a slave from birth to death. What is a Chinese factory worker who makes $40 a month, if not a slave ? And the lives of millions of Americans too are not much better than the lives of slaves, present and past. We just use a different terminology to cope with some of the harder realities of life which chaff against our humanitarian illusions.
It may be popular in some circles to identify with slaves. The ancient greeks believed that slaves were not human because if they were human they would kill themselves or find some way to end their slavery rather than be a slave. My only advice to anyone is to see to it that you donft end up as a slave to some narrow ideology, to some pig of a boss, to some bit*ch of a woman, or to your own eternal timidity and fear. In that way, and only only that way, do we strike at the heart of the problem.
It would be a terrible mistake for us to give up our presence in the world. Other forces would simply rush in to fill the vacuum – that is a certainty. Japan benefits tremendously from americafs presence in the region. Japan could ask america to leave but most japanese politicians understand that this would not be advantageous for japan.
We both want to see a better world, and we both want to see man do better. We simply have very different ideas on how this can be achieved. My feeling is that many of the ideas that you have create circumstances which produce the very opposite of what you intend.
Perhaps the best compromise is to have American Nikkeijin like Lt. Ehren Watada to station in his own homeland of Okinawa. Now I say that he could be used for his fluent Japanese language skills. American Japanese should be used to fill those roles, so they can be good cultural brokers. The British did this with Canadians, using men with British ancestry to station in England during WWII to be on standby during the Mackenzie King administration.
If Generals such as Eric Shinseki who is a Nikkei 34th Chief of Staff could rise that high, such negotiations could have been possible.
Eh....I don't think so. If China and Russia and those hostile nations surrounding America join forces together, then USA will be defeated militarily. Although China still has a long way to go in their military upgradings but the commies have man-power while Russia has always been good at missile tech.
China and Russian will have to fight against Britain also. Canada being sandwiched in the middle will be the haven for all these US refugees will be running to for help. I could just see millions of Americans becoming Canadians at that point, and Queen Elizabeth II will have no choice but to excercise the powers that she never does to allow all British citizens to live in Canada and have the same rights as a Canadian citizen. Canada which is amazing for loving the British Queen more so than the Engish themselves, will probably be willing to allow them to come, although the Yankee will be given only refugee status.
I could see the Queen coming to live in Canada at that point. Japan will be obliterated by North Korea, and Japan will be a country that is no more. Only Japanese expats will remain, and will be forced to have a card that proves that they are not Chinese to the allied power.
I was stationed in Japan (Okinawa) while I was on active duty and I think it would be a shame for the US to pull its military forces from Japanese soil. But I think that perhaps that it is time to leave.
Having military forces in Japan was a financial benefit to the Japanese when they recovered from the devastation of the Second World War, and was a benefit to the US startegic plans during the Cold War. Japan no longer needs the economic assistance. The US is no longer attempting to contain the Soviet Union. The Japanese do not fear China (although perhaps they should) and are contemplating the expansion of the JDF. They do not need us. They want us less and less to be there.
The shame is that without US forces on Japanese soil, the avearge US citizens are less likely to see Japan, the people there, and the interchange of culture and ideas will decrease. Travel is expensive, more so in Japan. Without the social exchange between our people, understanding will lessen and the specter of simple generalization might replace it.
I am not Japanese. I would never want to live in Japan. But I will always value my experiences there and I fear that I will never go there again.
Hey shooter, could you comment on your personal experience of working with Japanese Americans working on the bases at Okinawa? I heard that AJA often work as translators and are commissioned with a butter bar having desk jobs in Okinawa. How do the Okinwanas view a Japanese who is seen wearing US uniform? Are they proud to see them doing this, or do they feel it is a shame, and something that is treson. I wonder what would happen to a dual national who is caught doing this?
What about a Japanese who is a permant resident of USA becoming a US 2nd Lieutanant. If this Lieutenant was not a dual citizen but only a permant resident, how would Japan strip him of his citizenship? Or does it not matter, as Japan and the US are now friends, just as a Canadian citizen can also become a US solider and it is okay with Canada.
Or will the United States save the Lieutenant from becoming Stateless by making him a citizen as he proved his loyalty to the USA by becoming an Army Lieutenant?
I have zero Japanese ancestry, but how competitive is if for a Canadian to get a job as a Japanese-English translator in the Army? I have strongly considered it, as you can see, I have done some research. I heard you don't have to see combat if I take a MOS as a translator in Okinawa, and I wonder what I would have to do to obtain a greencard to do this?
I will have a B.A. in Japanese. Do I have to compete with the Nikkei whose linguistic competency acquision is just mindblowing and extradordinary? Am I in a handicap since there is lots of American Japanese to comepete against? Or will the United States consider that a white guy like me will be less dubious with regards to national security than if they had a American Japanese who might be suspicious of working on the Japanese side, and thus be seen as more trustworthy?
Even now when I go to Japan with my US $$s I get less yen in return. When I take my yen back to America it almost doubles in value. It seems that the Yen is USUALLY more valuable than the dollar.
That is because the US dollar is declining over the last few years. Pretty soon, you will see that the Canadian dollar will be at par with yours. It is not that the Yen is getting strong, but the US dollar is decreasing. I feel that the Canadian government should be offering our oil to you folks. I will be happy to give our oil to you in exchange for having the war on Iraq to end.
That is because the US dollar is declining over the last few years. Pretty soon, you will see that the Canadian dollar will be at par with yours. It is not that the Yen is getting strong, but the US dollar is decreasing. I feel that the Canadian government should be offering our oil to you folks. I will be happy to give our oil to you in exchange for having the war on Iraq to end.
Actually it is more than just a few years nowmore like something in the neighborhood of 20 or so. The first major drop was when Reagan was President. When I first came to Japan the yen rate was a bit over 270 to the $ and dropped to 170 or so when I left.
When I came back it was down to about 130 or so and the bottom fell out at around 80 Yen to the $. I also know people who remember the yen at 360 to the $
It has been fluctuating between 105 to 117 or so for the past few years, it dropped because the Japanese economy was strong and the yen undervalued.
Having been a military brat and Dad was in the Air Force until the major shutdown of bases was in the 70s when Vietnam was pretty much over. Whether they should leave and shut down to save American Dollars $$ may be important for a few of us, in the long run, It is a needed security to have our Advanced bases in case of a major crisis. As the USA are the Policemen of the World, we tend to be in everyone's back yard. Yes we can be mis-behave a little or a whole lot too while in the position. We are not the Major power over any country. The game field has even out a little. Can Japan haf=ve its own Military force ready? how many japanese (men and women ) would join the military (JASDF) to protect their country? If the Peace Constitution can be revisioned and other Asian countries NOT PANIC about Japan will be come a militaristic WARMONGER like it was in the mid 30-40s. WE are always looking over our shoulders of what the others are doingin thier backyard.
There are many smaller issues masked here. The US military's presence here in Japan serves both parties' interests. The US gets to maintain strategic bases near China and NK. Japan gets FREE protection.
A question for those who want the US to leave: How long do you think it would be before China took a VERY aggressive stance toward Japan? The conflicted islands, oil reserves, fisheries, etc would be gobbled up in no time. Japan would lose all influence in the region instantly. Japan has a wonderfully trained MSDF (navy). I have worked with them quite extensively. However, the SDF's navy is way too small to protect an ISLAND NATION! If you think that NK is aggressively hostile now, wait until we leave. Those 'test' missiles might stop being 'tests' since there is no way that Japan could ever, EVER mount a successful attack against the entrenched country.
Bottomline: Japan is a sitting duck with many neighbors that really dont like them. The main reason that things have remained peaceful is the presence of the US military AND THE PROMISE THAT WE HAVE GIVEN JAPAN TO PROTECT THEM.
There are many smaller issues masked here. The US military's presence here in Japan serves both parties' interests. The US gets to maintain strategic bases near China and NK. Japan gets FREE protection.
A question for those who want the US to leave: How long do you think it would be before China took a VERY aggressive stance toward Japan? The conflicted islands, oil reserves, fisheries, etc would be gobbled up in no time. Japan would lose all influence in the region instantly. Japan has a wonderfully trained MSDF (navy). I have worked with them quite extensively. However, the SDF's navy is way too small to protect an ISLAND NATION! If you think that NK is aggressively hostile now, wait until we leave. Those 'test' missiles might stop being 'tests' since there is no way that Japan could ever, EVER mount a successful attack against the entrenched country.
Bottomline: Japan is a sitting duck with many neighbors that really dont like them. The main reason that things have remained peaceful is the presence of the US military AND THE PROMISE THAT WE HAVE GIVEN JAPAN TO PROTECT THEM.
Thank you for saying so.
I totally agree with you.
off topic:
We have "Konpira-shrine" near here, as a guardian deity of the sea. Japan-MDF ships sometimes come here to visit "Konpira-shrine". We can board "goei-kan(Defense Destroyer)" and enjoy cruising on that "friendly day". I love it.
"Self-appointed" is matter of interpretation by each generation. Just think after Vietnam , the US military winded down to point their budget was axed, nothing was being developed and NO ONE wanted ANOTHER Vietnam where we lost our edgee of being A Winning side. We lost our MIGHT in Vietnam. Those who served in Vietnam was looked down by the Public as being the "HEEL" or just a criminal of some sort.
In the movie, RAMBO, at the end of the movie, RAMBO said this we should be appreciated to have served its Country in any war or situation we are in.
Do you agree?
As for those serving Iraq now, there are amny support programs for soldiers returning and being part of the CIVILIAN life again. It is the transition timethat all of us would want when we are in a stress situation , SUCH as a"Life or Death situation"....
From what I understand the book that the First Blood movie was based upon (same name) was actually an anti-war story to show the futileness of war.
And the sheriff was not the 'bad guy' he was protrayed in the movie.
But, you know hollywood. Allergic to ideas.
The sodliers WERE the protestors, if anything soldiers coming back that were against the war were dissed by those back home who supported the war the most. Then...well, I'll let you read the article for yourself.
I don't know, I wasn't there either.
There are many smaller issues masked here. The US military's presence here in Japan serves both parties' interests. The US gets to maintain strategic bases near China and NK. Japan gets FREE protection.
Over half of the U.S. government's budget is on Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, most of these news sources you sited are incredibly extremist, myopic, and so brutally biased as to be a questionable source. This sort of journalism makes Rush Limbaugh look moderate by comparison. Instead, site reputable sources, please, and leave the left-wing conspiracy theories at home. Sensationalist, radical journalism like this has been as thoroughly discredited as anything Michael Moore's ever done.
In addition, I've spoken to numerous Vietnam veterans who have recounted incidents in which they had been spat upon and called "babykiller". One commented sardonically how there is no difference between him and a pro-choice lobbyist, in that case. Again, this Lembke's work is not reputable, and is, in fact, revisionist history, and scholarly journals (which are, themselves, often leftist), have not favorably reviewed this work because it is openly biased and the research was deliberately flawed.
I would actually agree with you, here. I don't think most Americans want us to have a military presence in Japan. Most Japanese I know are indifferent toward it, but most Koreans and Taiwanese most certainly want a base there in case China or North Korea try anything.
Admittedly, these South Koreans and Taiwanese are also nervous that Japan might try again to build a Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, but I doubt that will occur again. At least, not with Japan as the aggressor.
Admittedly, these South Koreans and Taiwanese are also nervous that Japan might try again to build a Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, but I doubt that will occur again. At least, not with Japan as the aggressor.
Really?
I don't think that many Westerners understand the relationship between Japan and Taiwan enough well. Taiwan is not same as South Korea which stands clearly China side.
Taiwanese are very realistic people.
Really?
I don't think that many Westerners understand the relationship between Japan and Taiwan enough well. Taiwan is not same as South Korea which stands clearly China side.
Taiwanese are very realistic people.
I agree that the Taiwanese are more worried about China. At least, that's what all the Taiwanese that I know are saying. But they also tell me they don't like Japan's plans for military development. They don't talk about it as much as the Koreans, though.
I think Japan learnt it from history that is the stupidest thing.
that is, japan do not want to be related anymore.
I think Japan know "USA thought" well because it is very similar and simple and military tactics.
however Japan can not understand what china and korea are thinking.
I would actually agree with you, here. I don't think most Americans want us to have a military presence in Japan. Most Japanese I know are indifferent toward it, but most Koreans and Taiwanese most certainly want a base there in case China or North Korea try anything.
If US force leaves Japan, japan would amend article 9.
I want to see american way in Asia that Japan could not do .
vietnum war and korean war were kind of good show. what is next?
By the way,
Yesterday, April 28, was the day when the Treaty of San Francisco between the Allied nations and Japan came into force.
It is Japan's Independence Day though even the most of Japanese forget.
:cracker: :cracker: :cracker: :56:
I don't think that US Force leaves Japan.
US Force can get all they need here.
Their hi-tech equipments need high level technology for maintenance.
Actually they consign some support work to Japan.
Infrastructure got ready well, clean environment, high standard of living, high technology...
Don't you think that Japan is too precious base to give to other?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
