Jump to content

Possible famine in the Horn of Africa


CaptainPanic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Facts

In 1984-1985, there was a widespread famine mostly in Ethiopia, but also some in countries around it. A (contested) number of 1 million people died. Drought was the reason that food did not grow, but a war caused the available food to be extremely poorly distributed.

 

Since then, the population in Somalia went from 6.4 million to 9.1 million. The population in Ethiopia went from 41 million to 82 million (it doubled!). The population of Eritrea went from 2.8 to 5.0 million. And the population of Kenya grew from 19.6 to 39.8 million people (also doubled). In short: in 26 years the region went from 70 million people to 136 million people.

 

Right now, again, millions are on the move. Drought has caused harvests to fail. Food reserves are depleting. And some media are starting to use the word 'famine'.

 

The ethical issue

Let me start with an apology. The things I wrote below are harsh and cold, and completely without emotion. But I find myself wondering these things, and this seems a place to discuss it.

 

If you know that you live in an area where extreme droughts are possible, and you know that the region is still extremely unstable and conflicts still rage in multiple countries (Ethiopia in the past, now in Sudan and Somalia)... and you double the population in merely 26 years, should we (you and I) feel responsible for these people? Aren't they just behaving irresponsible themselves?

 

I find myself wondering what problem we are solving by helping these people with emergency aid. If we feed these people, won't they just double their population in the next 25 years again? Obviously, a decent long term plan would help. But how can you provide long term support to a population that doubles every generation? What long term plan can you make for a population that is unsustainable in itself? If we help 136 million people now, wouldn't that just create another 136 million people that need our help in 25 years from now? Should we set up continuous (never ending) emergency aid programs? Where's the line? And how many other unsustainable populations are there? India? Bangladesh? Nigeria?

 

I'm not sure I will send money to the aid programs this time. I'm really struggling with the fact that the population in that region doubled to fast while there are so many problems.

 

What do you all think? I guess I'm a complete bastard, earning a decent living and not even wanting to give a little of it to save some lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts

In 1984-1985, there was a widespread famine mostly in Ethiopia, but also some in countries around it. A (contested) number of 1 million people died. Drought was the reason that food did not grow, but a war caused the available food to be extremely poorly distributed.

 

Since then, the population in Somalia went from 6.4 million to 9.1 million. The population in Ethiopia went from 41 million to 82 million (it doubled!). The population of Eritrea went from 2.8 to 5.0 million. And the population of Kenya grew from 19.6 to 39.8 million people (also doubled). In short: in 26 years the region went from 70 million people to 136 million people.

 

Right now, again, millions are on the move. Drought has caused harvests to fail. Food reserves are depleting. And some media are starting to use the word 'famine'.

 

The ethical issue

Let me start with an apology. The things I wrote below are harsh and cold, and completely without emotion. But I find myself wondering these things, and this seems a place to discuss it.

 

If you know that you live in an area where extreme droughts are possible, and you know that the region is still extremely unstable and conflicts still rage in multiple countries (Ethiopia in the past, now in Sudan and Somalia)... and you double the population in merely 26 years, should we (you and I) feel responsible for these people? Aren't they just behaving irresponsible themselves?

 

I find myself wondering what problem we are solving by helping these people with emergency aid. If we feed these people, won't they just double their population in the next 25 years again? Obviously, a decent long term plan would help. But how can you provide long term support to a population that doubles every generation? What long term plan can you make for a population that is unsustainable in itself? If we help 136 million people now, wouldn't that just create another 136 million people that need our help in 25 years from now? Should we set up continuous (never ending) emergency aid programs? Where's the line? And how many other unsustainable populations are there? India? Bangladesh? Nigeria?

 

I'm not sure I will send money to the aid programs this time. I'm really struggling with the fact that the population in that region doubled to fast while there are so many problems.

 

What do you all think? I guess I'm a complete bastard, earning a decent living and not even wanting to give a little of it to save some lives.

 

I think you're just telling the truth. Is it any use sending "aid" to these people? They seem fundamentally incapable of doing anything, except asking for more aid. We could keep giving them aid for a hundred years, and they'd still be asking for more.

 

Why can't they do something for themselves, instead of perpetually holding out their begging-bowls. Aren't we all getting a bit disenchanted with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aid has to be given in an effective manner. For instance, just sending food to a country can cause the price of food produced locally in that country to drop (in accordance with supply and demand).

 

Now, as the farmers in that country are dependent on the food they produce to earn them money, giving food aid causes those farmers to not be able to earn a living selling the food they produce, they have to sell more of it and make less money altogether.

 

This causes a vicious cycle where by the farmers become dependent on the food aid.

 

The other problem with these situations is that the culture encourages large families. This is because traditionally child mortality rates have been high. For a population to remain stable, exactly 2 children for every family must make it to adulthood. Any more, and the population grows, any less, and the population shrinks.

 

For most of human history, we have had large (5+ children) families, but the population has remained fairly stable (it has grown but only slowly). With the introduction of effective medicine, the child mortality rate was greatly reduced and the populations sky-rocketed.

 

In 3rd world countries access to effective medicine has been poor, but now, because of aid programs and such, these countries are getting better access to medicine and consequently child mortality rates have dropped. This has lead to the increase in populations.

 

It is not that they have access to more food that has caused the populations to increase, but it is access to medicine that has done it. Access to food has caused them to become dependent on the food aid due to it suppressing the local food economies. Then as the populations grew, this just re-enforced their dependence on the food aid (as families sizes grew and more families exist, the available space for food production per family goes down).

 

Aid needs to be carefully managed so as not to cause the country that is receiving it to become dependent on it due to the aid suppressing the local economies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aid has to be given in an effective manner. For instance, just sending food to a country can cause the price of food produced locally in that country to drop (in accordance with supply and demand).

 

Now, as the farmers in that country are dependent on the food they produce to earn them money, giving food aid causes those farmers to not be able to earn a living selling the food they produce, they have to sell more of it and make less money altogether.

 

This causes a vicious cycle where by the farmers become dependent on the food aid.

You are right, but those were problems of the past. In the here and now, we have a famine on our hands. Emergency aid is the only thing that will keep these people alive. Question is: should we give it? (If I ask it like this, it's even more harsh than in my previous post - I dislike myself when talking about this).

 

The other problem with these situations is that the culture encourages large families. This is because traditionally child mortality rates have been high. For a population to remain stable, exactly 2 children for every family must make it to adulthood. Any more, and the population grows, any less, and the population shrinks.

 

For most of human history, we have had large (5+ children) families, but the population has remained fairly stable (it has grown but only slowly). With the introduction of effective medicine, the child mortality rate was greatly reduced and the populations sky-rocketed.

 

In 3rd world countries access to effective medicine has been poor, but now, because of aid programs and such, these countries are getting better access to medicine and consequently child mortality rates have dropped. This has lead to the increase in populations.

 

It is not that they have access to more food that has caused the populations to increase, but it is access to medicine that has done it. Access to food has caused them to become dependent on the food aid due to it suppressing the local food economies. Then as the populations grew, this just re-enforced their dependence on the food aid (as families sizes grew and more families exist, the available space for food production per family goes down).

 

Aid needs to be carefully managed so as not to cause the country that is receiving it to become dependent on it due to the aid suppressing the local economies.

I hope I don't put words into your mouth, but I read that we (the countries that provide aid) are responsible to keeping the children alive, because we provide medicine and aid, so we are responsible for the population growth?

 

Maybe there should be a box of condoms and some birth control pills with every bag of grain/corn or with every box of medicines that is shipped to those countries? At least the birth control measures might cancel out the population growth that we cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give them money, not food.

In my country beggars don't ask for food, they ask for money. I personnaly don't work for food, I work for money. Our entire society lives around money. If you gave several billions of dollars to these people, they would not only eat, they would start consuming a bunch of other products and maybe produce something. they would buy Armani suits and look better than you and me, they would build schools or even come to some Britain's College.

 

But I know, it is naive and immoral to give money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was an Ethiopian or a Somalian who looked at the situation and was either very sad or very angry that the world didn't stop playing with their mobile telephones or playstations to do something about the famines , you couldn't blame them , could you ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was an Ethiopian or a Somalian who looked at the situation and was either very sad or very angry that the world didn't stop playing with their mobile telephones or playstations to do something about the famines , you couldn't blame them , could you ?

 

 

Why are the famines always in Africa - what could be the reason?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are the famines always in Africa - what could be the reason?

 

 

Famines are not always in Africa . From 1845 - 1852 1 million people died in Ireland . This famine was because the people were mostly dependent on one food for their nourishment , potato , when it rained and rained and got diseased for a few years they had no food and died .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Famines are not always in Africa . From 1845 - 1852 1 million people died in Ireland . This famine was because the people were mostly dependent on one food for their nourishment , potato , when it rained and rained and got diseased for a few years they had no food and died .

In fairness to the rain, this was only because the British government took the view, ably expressed by Dekan that there was no use sending "aid" to these people. They seemed fundamentally incapable of doing anything, except asking for more aid. (They were just Irish after all. ) The government could keep giving them aid for a hundred years, and they'd still be asking for more. So, really, lets not blame the rain - either its over abundance in Ireland, or its shortfall in Africa. Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs on the uneducated, poverty stricken, debt ridden, resource deprived peoples of the Horn of Africa. And let's drink to that. A Napa valley Merlot from 2002 should be ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you know that you live in an area where extreme droughts are possible, and you know that the region is still extremely unstable and conflicts still rage in multiple countries (Ethiopia in the past, now in Sudan and Somalia)... and you double the population in merely 26 years, should we (you and I) feel responsible for these people? Aren't they just behaving irresponsible themselves?

 

 

This may be true if they had actually had access to all this information and planned it deliberately. Or even had a choice to do anything about it. Did the government fail? To a large amount, yes. It is true that emergency help does not help in the long run. In the long run a commitment to build infrastructure, introduce a standard of living where people can start to thing about anything instead of just surviving the day, or even worse, decide which of their kids they should allow to starve first. And then leverage that to create a decent educational system.

But I suppose it would take much more money than just throw some food at them every now and then and ignore them the rest of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be true if they had actually had access to all this information and planned it deliberately. Or even had a choice to do anything about it.

That's something I wonder about... There are many posts that suggest that the actions of these African people are rather instinctive, and that reasoning is not something that they are capable of (or at least, they do not do it). And I don't believe that.

 

Does the average African in that region not plan their families? I bet they get married first, and only then make a family. Shows it's definitely planned. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a form of pressure from the community to get more kids, which would suggest it's deliberate.

And I really wonder if they are not aware that they live in a conflict area? Maybe all the people walking around with AK47's does give a hint? Many Africans have mobile phones now (albeit often only one per village). They do have contact outside their local area.

 

I think that they know damn well that the situation is not ideal for a family. I think that despite all that, they still make a family.

 

p.s. You should realize that those documentaries that you see on TV about the tribes in Africa who don't know what white people look like and who have never seen any plastic object are always about the most remote tribes. From an anthropoligical point of view, that's just the most interesting. But that's not the average African anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Famines are not always in Africa . From 1845 - 1852 1 million people died in Ireland . This famine was because the people were mostly dependent on one food for their nourishment , potato , when it rained and rained and got diseased for a few years they had no food and died .

 

 

In fairness to the rain, this was only because the British government took the view, ably expressed by Dekan that there was no use sending "aid" to these people. They seemed fundamentally incapable of doing anything, except asking for more aid. (They were just Irish after all. ) The government could keep giving them aid for a hundred years, and they'd still be asking for more. So, really, lets not blame the rain - either its over abundance in Ireland, or its shortfall in Africa. Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs on the uneducated, poverty stricken, debt ridden, resource deprived peoples of the Horn of Africa. And let's drink to that. A Napa valley Merlot from 2002 should be ideal.

 

 

A hypothetical ,

 

If it was civil to call you an idiot , I wouldn't . If it were also civil to refer to you as an asshole , I wouldn't . I'd save the civility for the case of being allowed to call you a racist , in my totally and utterly absolute honest opinion .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to the rain, this was only because the British government took the view, ably expressed by Dekan that there was no use sending "aid" to these people. They seemed fundamentally incapable of doing anything, except asking for more aid. (They were just Irish after all. ) The government could keep giving them aid for a hundred years, and they'd still be asking for more. So, really, lets not blame the rain - either its over abundance in Ireland, or its shortfall in Africa. Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs on the uneducated, poverty stricken, debt ridden, resource deprived peoples of the Horn of Africa. And let's drink to that. A Napa valley Merlot from 2002 should be ideal.

Imatfaal , I considered the post as satire aswell and concluded it was otherwise .

I think up until the toast, the post was on topic and mostly factual. Ophiolite starts with a historical precedent to base his opinion on. And although it might be confronting, it's all true. The English did not treat the Irish as equals in those days (although I have no idea who is this "Dekan"). The peoples in the Horn of Africa are indeed often uneducated, poverty stricken, debt ridden, resource deprived. And this thread definitely asked where we should put the responsibility (the "blame", if you want) for their situation.

 

The toast at the end might be tasteless... but the post definitely contains merit for this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic , the only way your talk of merit could be respected as the equal of mine of non merit is if you were Irish . Tell me where you are from and I'll show you some of your standard of meritable satire .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic , the only way your talk of merit could be respected as the equal of mine of non merit is if you were Irish . Tell me where you are from and I'll show you some of your standard of meritable satire .

Although I don't see the point of knowing where I'm from, it's no secret: I'm from the Netherlands.

 

I should probably have said "value" instead of "merit". Anyway... the value of that post is that Ophiolite explains quite well the behavior of most people in western countries. Many of us pretend to care, but we actually don't. Many of us say that those people in Africa have themselves to blame for their own problems (or, more accurately, we simply don't take much responsibility in the rich countries, and the people in Africa also have nobody else except themselves to rely on, so logically they are responsible for themselves... and now that it's gone wrong again, "responsibility" might be replaced by "blame").

 

The large majority of the people in the western countries just don't care about the people in far-away countries... We might donate a tiny portion of our income to it (0.1 - 1% of our annual income, or something) out of pity or guilt... and that's it. We knowingly consume food and goods from "cheap labor" countries - produced for a wage which we certainly would refuse to work for. On a daily basis we exploit them. Their life expectancy has for many years been significantly lower than ours. In every physically measurable way these people's lives are worse than our luxurious lives.

 

Ophiolite chose his words well to give that large majority a voice. From our rich point of view, the responsibility for the well-being of these Africans is obviously with themselves, since we just don't care...

It's the hard reality that many of the people posting on this forum might later today drink a glass of wine or a cold beer, and forget about their troubles... while people in Africa are dying of malnutrition.

 

I don't think there's much satire in the post at all... although Ophiolite might have meant it as satire, I think it's useful that Ophiolite opened up the discussion like that.

 

p.s. I realize that I talk about Ophiolite's post, but I don't intend to put words in his/her mouth. My interpretation of that post is mine only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic ,

 

I thought , oh no , CaptainPanic is from a country I like , I loved the girls who dressed so nicely in all that traditional clothing , oooooh to wander in a tulip field with the right two lips or four as the case may be , while the girls like it round the back of a dyke . Then the reality of it all dawned on me . I thought , I need not be satirical which I haven't been yet , truthfully it should be said , the Netherlands is a mess . The underclass of foreign people who prop up your economy with the availability of cheap labour is one day going to realise that paradise is not a cheap packet of cigarettes and some drugs to make you think all is great , flat heineken and a quick how's your father on the way home from the pub . Are you not ashamed of a country that has police stations alongside scenes of lines of men standing opposite windows with girls in bikinis , some standing in the shadows with their hands in their pockets playing with what not only God knows ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic ,

 

I thought , oh no , CaptainPanic is from a country I like , I loved the girls who dressed so nicely in all that traditional clothing , oooooh to wander in a tulip field with the right two lips or four as the case may be , while the girls like it round the back of a dyke . Then the reality of it all dawned on me . I thought , I need not be satirical which I haven't been yet , truthfully it should be said , the Netherlands is a mess . The underclass of foreign people who prop up your economy with the availability of cheap labour is one day going to realise that paradise is not a cheap packet of cigarettes and some drugs to make you think all is great , flat heineken and a quick how's your father on the way home from the pub . Are you not ashamed of a country that has police stations alongside scenes of lines of men standing opposite windows with girls in bikinis , some standing in the shadows with their hands in their pockets playing with what not only God knows ?

 

post-27780-0-93580500-1311097146_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're just telling the truth. Is it any use sending "aid" to these people? They seem fundamentally incapable of doing anything, except asking for more aid. We could keep giving them aid for a hundred years, and they'd still be asking for more.

 

Why can't they do something for themselves, instead of perpetually holding out their begging-bowls. Aren't we all getting a bit disenchanted with them?

 

Food aid is often sent to developing countries in order to maintain demand for crops that are overproduced in rich countries. The reason they are perpetually holding out their begging bowls is because we've created a system in many countries in Africa in which US food is too cheap and/or free, and farming is too expensive.

 

Quote from Africa Recovery

[M]any African producers of export crops are seriously hampered by unfavourable -- and inequitable -- international markets and trading arrangements, issues that have seen very little progress in the current World Trade Organization negotiations (see article "Global agricultural trade talks stall"). Especially debilitating for African agriculture have been the large subsidies that rich countries provide their own farmers, which have the effect of pushing down world market prices for cotton, sugar and other African farm exports (see article "Mounting opposition to Northern farm subsidies"). Therefore, the UN Secretary-General says, increasing resources for agriculture in Africa will require "dismantling the agricultural subsidies from rich countries," which currently total more than $300 bn per year. "Only then will Africa be able to achieve truly sustainable agricultural production."

 

(edited for grammatical clarity)

Edited by jeskill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's something I wonder about... There are many posts that suggest that the actions of these African people are rather instinctive, and that reasoning is not something that they are capable of (or at least, they do not do it). And I don't believe that.

 

Does the average African in that region not plan their families? I bet they get married first, and only then make a family. Shows it's definitely planned. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a form of pressure from the community to get more kids, which would suggest it's deliberate.

 

Instinctive? I am not suggesting that. Unless, you think that early 20th century (and earlier) family planning in Europe was instinctual. But there are several issues here, lack of wide-spread education being one of them. Wide-spread family planning is a relatively modern invention.

Also practically, what would be the alternative if they do not have free access to birth control? Abstinence because there may be a bad harvest next year? Again, lack of education, lack of access to information and lack of means to do anything against it make planning virtually impossible.

And well, we see how well abstinence educations works even in well-educated societies in which food is abundant.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic ,

 

I thought , oh no , CaptainPanic is from a country I like , I loved the girls who dressed so nicely in all that traditional clothing , oooooh to wander in a tulip field with the right two lips or four as the case may be , while the girls like it round the back of a dyke . Then the reality of it all dawned on me . I thought , I need not be satirical which I haven't been yet , truthfully it should be said , the Netherlands is a mess . The underclass of foreign people who prop up your economy with the availability of cheap labour is one day going to realise that paradise is not a cheap packet of cigarettes and some drugs to make you think all is great , flat heineken and a quick how's your father on the way home from the pub . Are you not ashamed of a country that has police stations alongside scenes of lines of men standing opposite windows with girls in bikinis , some standing in the shadows with their hands in their pockets playing with what not only God knows ?

 

Hal - your traducing of an entire country is disgraceful, uncalled for, and illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic ,

 

I thought , oh no , CaptainPanic is from a country I like , I loved the girls who dressed so nicely in all that traditional clothing , oooooh to wander in a tulip field with the right two lips or four as the case may be , while the girls like it round the back of a dyke . Then the reality of it all dawned on me . I thought , I need not be satirical which I haven't been yet , truthfully it should be said , the Netherlands is a mess . The underclass of foreign people who prop up your economy with the availability of cheap labour is one day going to realise that paradise is not a cheap packet of cigarettes and some drugs to make you think all is great , flat heineken and a quick how's your father on the way home from the pub . Are you not ashamed of a country that has police stations alongside scenes of lines of men standing opposite windows with girls in bikinis , some standing in the shadows with their hands in their pockets playing with what not only God knows ?

I invite you to open a new thread to discuss the Netherlands, and all it's problems. I completely agree that the Netherlands is not paradise, and we have problems. However, I do think you have a couple of misconceptions about the place. I think it's too much off topic for this thread though. The Netherlands might be densely populated, but it can be self-sustaining regarding food and energy and its population has mostly stabilized, so it doesn't belong in a thread about famines and population growth.

 

p.s. We also wonder why Heineken is such a success.

 

Instinctive? I am not suggesting that.

Then I misunderstood. I'm glad that this is solved :)

 

But there are several issues here, lack of wide-spread education being one of them. Wide-spread family planning is a relatively modern invention.

I am hestitant to accept that education (as we know it - schools and such, learning to read and write) is really the issue here. The native Americans seemed to be able to live in harmony with their environment, and all they had (as far as I know) were some village elders who had wisdom and local knowledge... or should we count that as education too? I don't see why elderly people in Africa should be any different. Why can't they have wisdom?

 

My limited knowledge about native Americans might have given me an idealized view of their society. Did they have their population growth under control?

 

Also practically, what would be the alternative if they do not have free access to birth control? Abstinence because there may be a bad harvest next year? Again, lack of education, lack of access to information and lack of means to do anything against it make planning virtually impossible.

And well, we see how well abstinence educations works even in well-educated societies in which food is abundant.

Birth control is really easy to provide. And really cheap. I postulate, without any proof, that any economy in this world, no matter how poor, would be able to provide birth control if it wanted to. If you can get an AK-47 and a box of bullets in the middle of nowhere to fight a conflict, you can sure as hell get a box of condoms or birth control pills there too, if you want to.

 

I do not think that the things you describe are the problem. You describe only issues here that are not in the hands of the locals.

But I really think that in Africa, there are people who make decisions against birth control. There are people who knowingly allow this to happen, and possibly even encourage people to have large families. I think leaders of these people take conscious decisions to stimulate population growth. It's a cultural thing (and that's something which is completely in the hands of the locals).

 

Local farmers know quite well how many people their lands can sustain. They know how much cattle they must have to feed all the mouths. They know that with larger families, they either must expand or eat less. These people understand the consequences of their growing families. And they still do it.

 

I've read many posts here which put the blame for the situation of Africans somewhere else... and their economic problems are indeed for a large part in the hands of the rich countries. But their population growth is not, as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hestitant to accept that education (as we know it - schools and such, learning to read and write) is really the issue here. The native Americans seemed to be able to live in harmony with their environment, and all they had (as far as I know) were some village elders who had wisdom and local knowledge... or should we count that as education too? I don't see why elderly people in Africa should be any different. Why can't they have wisdom?

 

My limited knowledge about native Americans might have given me an idealized view of their society. Did they have their population growth under control?

 

 

I think you have a rather romantic view. Famines were rampant, even in highly developed civilizations. Heck, a couple of posts back Ireland was mentioned and that was not that long ago. You have to remember that these are partially industrialized nations, early 20th and 19th century Europe is probably a better comparison. One aspect of colonization was that it was believed that people had not enough space because the population growth was not under control. Birth control (on a wider basis) is really a thing that happened in very very recent times.

However, if you believe it is easily accessible, you are also mistaken. Do you believe that a government that does not provide clean water for its people will provide condoms for free? Here is a random article on this issue My link

 

 

And this for those that know that they can prevent birth and diseases with condoms. And this is what I mean with education. It is not only reading or writing (though in the long run it will be a necessity), but about knowing ones options (and providing those). In addition you have to remember that many of the poorest countries are an odd mix in which the modern clashes with traditional living styles. Growing villages and cities make certain traditional styles obsolete, certain modernization efforts that have changed nomads to sedentary styles which providing the proper means to do so, the list goes on. Your premise is a beneficial, government in a well-informed population. But in many of the poorest countries it is not the case (note that it is not Africa per se, there stable and wealthy nations around, we are talking about the war-infested).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.