Welcome to Gaia! ::



Peter Dow's "no" to Taliban's surrender terms. Afpak strategy for victory in war on terror. (YouTube)

CBS News
CBS News: Divisions within Taliban make peace elusive

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made news Wednesday when he said the combat role for U.S. troops in Afghanistan could end next year instead of 2014. On Thursday, he took a step back -- insisting U.S. forces will remain combat ready -- even as they transition into their new role of training Afghan troops.

Another part of the U.S. strategy involves getting the Taliban to hold peace talks with the Afghan government. CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward spoke with some top Taliban representatives where they live in Pakistan.

They call Sami ul Haq the "Father of the Taliban," one of Pakistan's most well-known and hard-line Islamists.

Ward visited ul Haq at his religious school near the Afghan border. Many Afghan Taliban leaders and fighters studied there, earning it the nickname the "University of Jihad."

Ul Haq said that top Taliban figures are receptive to the idea of peace talks, but that three key conditions must be met first: The Americans must leave Afghanistan, he told Ward. Secondly, Taliban leaders should be released from Guantonamo. The third demand is there should be no outside interference in Afghanistan.

It's unlikely that American negotiators will accept these terms, though a release of some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay has been discussed.

While some elements of the Taliban's leadership may be supportive of peace talks, there are clear signs that divisions exist within the group. Many of the younger, more militant foot soldiers insisting that they are not ready to stop fighting.

At a small guesthouse on the outskirts of Islamabad, CBS News had the rare chance to sit down with a young Taliban commander from Helmand province. For security reasons, he asked that his face be not shown.

"If these talks in Doha are successful and Taliban leaders tell you and your fighters to put down your arms, will you do it?" asked Ward.

"No, it will not happen," he said. "And those who are talking to the political wing of the Taliban should understand that real peace is only possible by talking to the ground fighters."

"So the bottom line is you're not willing to compromise, you're not willing to collaborate? Is there any chance of peace?"

"If the Afghan government announced tomorrow that strict Islamic law would be reinstated, we would accept that," he said, "but those in power now will never go along with that."

For the moment, there is a huge gulf between what the Taliban and their backers want and what America would be willing to accept.


So the Deans of Jihad have dictated terms to the West, the terms they propose of the West's surrender to the Jihadis in the war on terror.

So what should the response of the West be? Should we surrender to the Jihadis, or should we fight to win?

This guy Sami ul Haq should be a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp along with his University of Jihad colleagues, his controllers from the Pakistani ISI and his financial backers from Saudi Arabia.

The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".

There ought to be drone strikes on the University of Jihad. (Darul Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, Pakistan)

We ought to seize control of Pakistani and Saudi TV satellites and use them to broadcast propaganda calling for the arrest of all involved in waging terrorist war against the West.

It just seems very poor tactics for our military to be risking life and limb in the minefields of Afghanistan yet at the strategic level our governments and businesses are still "trading with the enemy". confused

As the Star Trek character Commander Scott might have said -

"It's war, Captain but not as we know it." razz
Peter Dow


The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".


Yeah, but then that begs the question...why did the US cover for, do business deals and give tens of billions of dollars to them even tho the US knew both(especially Saudi Arabia) was balls deep in guiding the 9/11 hijackers?

Several days ago it was reported Pakistan has been the secret hand guiding the Taliban and protected bin Laden in Abbatabad(again, we give these guys tens of billions of US dollars)
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10282414-bbc-secret-report-reveals-pakistan-taliban-ties
Pallas Parthenos's avatar

Shy Tycoon

Peter Dow


It just seems very poor tactics for our military to be risking life and limb in the minefields of Afghanistan yet at the strategic level our governments and businesses are still "trading with the enemy". confused

Problems with countries with radically different political and philosophical backgrounds are rarely solved by flying in on the Americeaglemobile, guns ablazing, and mowing down whomever resembles a Taliban member to us.

In situations involving multiple countries with close connections, one often needs to enlist the help of the less-hostile countries (e.g., Pakistan). We need safe places for bases for ground and air operations and insider information, among other things, none of which will be gained by declaring a total sanction on all communication with an entire region. Yes, it's a little demoralizing that we sometimes pretend countries where our soldiers are losing their lives are our allies, but wars must be waged strategically-- and that doesn't always happen on the battlefield.

Furthermore, as the situation with sanctions on Iran illustrates, in a global economy, a gov't declaring sanctions on trade with a country doesn't always work. Not only does the notion of a free-market economy side-step that, but even when a country obliges on the surface, there are indirect ways of continuing to do business with a country (e.g., Belgium's SWIFT).

Lastly, one has to wonder sometimes what our real motives RE other countries are. It's easy for the administration and Dept of State spokespeople to paint actions in the Middle East as the classic "good v. evil" war, but, as has been mentioned, there is a strong presence of economic motivations. That actual intent of our actions in the ME may be more convoluted than they first appear.
pockybot
Peter Dow


The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".


Yeah, but then that begs the question...why did the US cover for, do business deals and give tens of billions of dollars to them even tho the US knew both(especially Saudi Arabia) was balls deep in guiding the 9/11 hijackers?

Several days ago it was reported Pakistan has been the secret hand guiding the Taliban and protected bin Laden in Abbatabad(again, we give these guys tens of billions of US dollars)
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10282414-bbc-secret-report-reveals-pakistan-taliban-ties

in the case of Pakistan they went with it 'cause Pakistan would give them "top-level guys" (like 4th in line) of Al Queda every time it came to inspect the state of the alliance, so they pretty much looked the other way when Pakistan openly aided the Taliban.
pockybot
Peter Dow


The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".


Yeah, but then that begs the question...why did the US cover for, do business deals and give tens of billions of dollars to them even tho the US knew both(especially Saudi Arabia) was balls deep in guiding the 9/11 hijackers?

Well the US doesn't give money to Saudi Arabia who are already very rich from the sale of their oil.

The US, like everyone else in the West, falls over themselves to sell stuff to the Saudis and this creates political pressures from businesses and the people they employ who want "business as usual", pressures on stupid and short-sighted politicians to forgive or turn a blind eye to things wrong - like Saudi Arabia has always had a rotten government with a poor human rights record but when jobs are at stake then politicians in the West don't want to offend the Saudis for any reason in case they decide to buy elsewhere.

If there is a lot of money sloshing around it buys people off to do things against the long term national or public interest.

Even when governments stupidity smacks them in the face like the stupidity of making the Saudi state so rich so they could do 9/11 on what for them is small change, the governments will respond in the way that saves their face the most, so they can tell themselves they did nothing wrong which invited harm upon themselves.

So it suited the US's and West's face to blame the weak-state of Afghanistan as the sole state sponsor of terrorism rather than also blame their partners in crime Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

pockybot
Several days ago it was reported Pakistan has been the secret hand guiding the Taliban and protected bin Laden in Abbatabad(again, we give these guys tens of billions of US dollars)
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10282414-bbc-secret-report-reveals-pakistan-taliban-ties


The deal with Pakistan is different because it is a poor country who used to get funded by the US as an ally against the Soviets when the Soviets were expanding influence into Afghanistan and India was not of much help with that.

The Pakistanis helped train up, arm and supply Afghan rebels against the Soviets and funding from the likes of Saudi Arabia could be got by spinning it as a holy war or jihad against the godless commies.

Then when the Soviet threat went away the US cut off a lot of money from the Pakistanis who were then desperate to come up with a plan to get back on the US pay roll. After all, the Pakistanis really wanted a lot of cash to pay for nuclear weapons so they could be as big and as bad as their rivals India.

So when the Saudis offered to keep funding the Pakistanis to train up more jihadi "terrorists" (as we now call them when they fight us in the West rather than someone we didn't like at the time, the Soviets - back then they were called "freedom fighters" ) after the US didn't want to any pay for that any more, Pakistan took the Saudis money.

Then after 9/11 when the US offered to fund the Pakistanis to capture jihadis that turned out to be a good business opportunity for the Pakistanis as well.

The Pakistanis farm terrorists like their neighbour Afghans farm poppies and they tell the lies that their two different customers want to hear - "yes we are really for jihad" lie to the Saudis and "yes we are really for the war on terror" lie to the West.

So what lie do you want from the Pakistanis? They want money and whatever lie gets them the money they will tell it.
Pallas Parthenos
Peter Dow


It just seems very poor tactics for our military to be risking life and limb in the minefields of Afghanistan yet at the strategic level our governments and businesses are still "trading with the enemy". confused

Problems with countries with radically different political and philosophical backgrounds are rarely solved by flying in on the Americeaglemobile, guns ablazing, and mowing down whomever resembles a Taliban member to us.

I agree that the Pakistani state could do a much more surgical job of arresting the Taliban high command (the likes of Sami ul Haq the "Father of the Taliban" and the Chancellor of the "University of Jihad" ) than the "guns blazing" approach of drone strikes on the campus of said "University of Jihad" but in the absence of the appropriate action by the Pakistani state to round up all our enemies then drone strikes, missile strikes, raids against carefully selected targets based on high quality intelligence is what is left to us as an option to take the fight to our enemies inside Pakistan.

It would be nice if Pakistan was a reliable partner in the war on terror but they are not, so deal with it.

Pallas Parthenos
In situations involving multiple countries with close connections, one often needs to enlist the help of the less-hostile countries (e.g., Pakistan). We need safe places for bases for ground and air operations and insider information, among other things, none of which will be gained by declaring a total sanction on all communication with an entire region. Yes, it's a little demoralizing that we sometimes pretend countries where our soldiers are losing their lives are our allies, but wars must be waged strategically-- and that doesn't always happen on the battlefield.

I am all for waging war strategically and that is what I have presented - a strategic confrontation of the enemy that will assist our forward deployed forces.

Whereas the current set up of configuring our military deployments so that they are dependent on the co-operation of a duplicitous back-stabbing ally-one-minute-enemy-the-next like Pakistan is strategically incompetent.

The Taliban is a proxy for the Pakistani state, a "Taliban bad cop" to the Pakistan's official "government good cop". The Taliban is a child of Pakistan and we must deal with it accordingly.

The West's generals are inept and doomed for disappointment for ever if they are depending on "enlisting the help" of Pakistan to allow us bases, supply routes through Pakistani territory they control etc. with which to crush the very Taliban which Pakistan has set up and uses to make money from us and Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan has tried to tie our military down in Afghanistan like a milking cow and they have been milking us for every penny they can. So far the Afghan Af-Pak mission has been a long drawn out military disaster run by incompetent half-wit generals and civilian fools like Western defence secretaries, ministers and NATO secretary generals and other civilian staff.

We cannot "enlist the help of Pakistan" to defeat the Taliban. That is like trying to enlist the help of a man against his son.

We must smash the part of the Pakistani state called "the Taliban". If other parts of the Pakistani state wish to side with us against the part of the Pakistani state we must confront, all well and good.

After the Taliban is crushed we can then come to a peace with the rest of Pakistan which is left standing after the Taliban has been eliminated.

NATO-ISAF (the Western military in Afghanistan) do now have a few large airbases in Afghanistan and there are other surrounding countries to Afghanistan to the north which could supply our forces if our diplomacy with them was right so there are other options for supplies and bases rather than being solely dependent on Pakistan.

There is all the insider information needed to identify the Taliban-part-of-Pakistan enemy published in the pages of Wikipedia, though I must admit that this CBS news report has helped me to highlight the importance of this particular "University of Jihad" as a priority target.
As I explained, you cannot win in Afghanistan.
Pallas Parthenos
Furthermore, as the situation with sanctions on Iran illustrates, in a global economy, a gov't declaring sanctions on trade with a country doesn't always work. Not only does the notion of a free-market economy side-step that, but even when a country obliges on the surface, there are indirect ways of continuing to do business with a country (e.g., Belgium's SWIFT).

Quite and the Iraq invasion and toppling of Saddam was one solution to the problem of Saddam controlling an economy and ranging its wealth against us.

Pakistan using its Taliban proxies will take money from anyone, Iran and other oil-rich enemies of the West to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan because they'd rather see our soldiers die in Afghanistan than live elsewhere and be available to do to our other enemies what our soldiers did to Saddam.

When I suggest stopping "trading with the enemy" I do not propose leaving the enemy free to trade with others in place of us.

If they are our enemy then we must confront them, defeat them, remove them so they are not there to trade with anyone.

We ought to leave trading only our friends and trade with them.

For Pakistan that means removing the Taliban and associated elements from the state and helping our friends in Pakistani exercise responsible democratic government.

For Saudi Arabia that means assisting a republican revolution or the carving out of the oil fields under the control of another more reliable entity, so that if the Saudi royal family wish to finance global jihad they only have a few camels and lots of sand to do it with.


Pallas Parthenos
Lastly, one has to wonder sometimes what our real motives RE other countries are. It's easy for the administration and Dept of State spokespeople to paint actions in the Middle East as the classic "good v. evil" war, but, as has been mentioned, there is a strong presence of economic motivations. That actual intent of our actions in the ME may be more convoluted than they first appear.

Well our Western economies do just fine with peace. We didn't need this war. This war was brought to our doorstep, in case you forgot 9/11.

The Saudi economy would be fine with peace but the Saudi royals are so pampered and stupid that they think they can wage global jihad with their spare change with no consequences for them. For the Saudis, a global jihadi war by terrorist proxy is a luxury they think they can afford.

For Pakistan the economic motivation is clear and already explained.
God Emperor Akhenaton
As I explained, you cannot win in Afghanistan.

Remember the Allies in world war 2 had our first significant ground victories against the Nazis in North Africa.

Now there was no way we could win the whole world war by simply liberating North Africa.

But we could win in North Africa and did so and that gave us the confidence to go on to win in Italy, win in France and finally win in Germany itself.

Sure we cannot win this whole global war on terror in Afghanistan only but, like North Africa was in WW2, Afghanistan was as good a place to start as anywhere.
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
As I explained, you cannot win in Afghanistan.

Remember the Allies in world war 2 had our first significant ground victories against the Nazis in North Africa.

Now there was no way we could win the whole world war by simply liberating North Africa.

But we could win in North Africa and did so and that gave us the confidence to go on to win in Italy, win in France and finally win in Germany itself.

Sure we cannot win this whole global war on terror in Afghanistan only but, like North Africa was in WW2, Afghanistan was as good a place to start as anywhere.

Europe is different from Afghanistan, North Africa is different from Afghanistan, The Nazi's are different from Afghanistan. Do you not get it? Afghanistan has faced foes more powerful than the US and they have always won. They NEVER lost a war and they NEVER give up. Staying there is only going to amount to more deaths.
N3bu
pockybot
Peter Dow


The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".


Yeah, but then that begs the question...why did the US cover for, do business deals and give tens of billions of dollars to them even tho the US knew both(especially Saudi Arabia) was balls deep in guiding the 9/11 hijackers?

Several days ago it was reported Pakistan has been the secret hand guiding the Taliban and protected bin Laden in Abbatabad(again, we give these guys tens of billions of US dollars)
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10282414-bbc-secret-report-reveals-pakistan-taliban-ties

in the case of Pakistan they went with it 'cause Pakistan would give them "top-level guys" (like 4th in line) of Al Queda every time it came to inspect the state of the alliance, so they pretty much looked the other way when Pakistan openly aided the Taliban.

Which is as dumb as thinking you can stop the opium trade and poppy growing by buying up some of the best quality opium.

The more product you buy the more is invested in growing new product whether the problem is farming poppies or recruiting jihadis. If you pay more for good quality product then they simply invest more in creating more quality product.

To stop the poppies being grown you have to arrest or kill the farmers who grow poppy and if you want to stop jihadis being indoctrinated, trained and armed you have to arrest or kill those who organise, train and fund them - so that means attacking at source Pakistani ISI controllers, University and colleges of Jihad indoctrinators, and Saudi and other sources of funding.

You don't stop an industry by buying product - only by eliminating the production at source.

Once the producers have stopped producing the remaining product can be mopped up easily enough.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
As I explained, you cannot win in Afghanistan.

Remember the Allies in world war 2 had our first significant ground victories against the Nazis in North Africa.

Now there was no way we could win the whole world war by simply liberating North Africa.

But we could win in North Africa and did so and that gave us the confidence to go on to win in Italy, win in France and finally win in Germany itself.

Sure we cannot win this whole global war on terror in Afghanistan only but, like North Africa was in WW2, Afghanistan was as good a place to start as anywhere.

Europe is different from Afghanistan, North Africa is different from Afghanistan, The Nazi's are different from Afghanistan. Do you not get it? Afghanistan has faced foes more powerful than the US and they have always won. They NEVER lost a war and they NEVER give up. Staying there is only going to amount to more deaths.

Yes the Nazis are different from Afghanistan. The Nazis were a political and military enemy - not the Germans, they were our friends, as soon as we got the Nazis beat.

Whereas Afghanistan is a place. We didn't go to North Africa to fight the North Africans we went to fight the Nazis.

Likewise, we didn't go to Afghanistan to fight the Afghans but the jihadis, the terrorists, the Taliban, all the state sponsors of terrorism.

Also we didn't go to Afganistan to stay in Afghanistan like we didn't go to North Africa to stay in North Africa. We beat the Nazis out of there then moved on.

Likewise with Afghanistan, we are not at war with Afghans, we are there to help them, we are at war with jihadis, terrorists, state sponsors.

Already we are launching drone strikes into Pakistan. We should escalate into taking our more significant Taliban targets in Pakistan, such as the University of Jihad, such as Pakistani ISI forward bases.

We are confronting the jihadis wherever they appear in the world. No-one is "staying in Afghanistan" but it makes an excellent forward base for operations into Pakistan.
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
As I explained, you cannot win in Afghanistan.

Remember the Allies in world war 2 had our first significant ground victories against the Nazis in North Africa.

Now there was no way we could win the whole world war by simply liberating North Africa.

But we could win in North Africa and did so and that gave us the confidence to go on to win in Italy, win in France and finally win in Germany itself.

Sure we cannot win this whole global war on terror in Afghanistan only but, like North Africa was in WW2, Afghanistan was as good a place to start as anywhere.

Europe is different from Afghanistan, North Africa is different from Afghanistan, The Nazi's are different from Afghanistan. Do you not get it? Afghanistan has faced foes more powerful than the US and they have always won. They NEVER lost a war and they NEVER give up. Staying there is only going to amount to more deaths.

Yes the Nazis are different from Afghanistan. The Nazis were a political and military enemy - not the Germans, they were our friends, as soon as we got the Nazis beat.

Whereas Afghanistan is a place. We didn't go to North Africa to fight the North Africans we went to fight the Nazis.

Likewise, we didn't go to Afghanistan to fight the Afghans but the jihadis, the terrorists, the Taliban, all the state sponsors of terrorism.

Also we didn't go to Afganistan to stay in Afghanistan like we didn't go to North Africa to stay in North Africa. We beat the Nazis out of there then moved on.

Likewise with Afghanistan, we are not at war with Afghans, we are there to help them, we are at war with jihadis, terrorists, state sponsors.

Already we are launching drone strikes into Pakistan. We should escalate into taking our more significant Taliban targets in Pakistan, such as the University of Jihad, such as Pakistani ISI forward bases.

We are confronting the jihadis wherever they appear in the world. No-one is "staying in Afghanistan" but it make an excellent forward base for operations into Pakistan.

It makes no difference, the terrorists are the people and the people support them, not the US. It doesn't matter, the US will lose.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
As I explained, you cannot win in Afghanistan.

Remember the Allies in world war 2 had our first significant ground victories against the Nazis in North Africa.

Now there was no way we could win the whole world war by simply liberating North Africa.

But we could win in North Africa and did so and that gave us the confidence to go on to win in Italy, win in France and finally win in Germany itself.

Sure we cannot win this whole global war on terror in Afghanistan only but, like North Africa was in WW2, Afghanistan was as good a place to start as anywhere.

Europe is different from Afghanistan, North Africa is different from Afghanistan, The Nazi's are different from Afghanistan. Do you not get it? Afghanistan has faced foes more powerful than the US and they have always won. They NEVER lost a war and they NEVER give up. Staying there is only going to amount to more deaths.

Yes the Nazis are different from Afghanistan. The Nazis were a political and military enemy - not the Germans, they were our friends, as soon as we got the Nazis beat.

Whereas Afghanistan is a place. We didn't go to North Africa to fight the North Africans we went to fight the Nazis.

Likewise, we didn't go to Afghanistan to fight the Afghans but the jihadis, the terrorists, the Taliban, all the state sponsors of terrorism.

Also we didn't go to Afganistan to stay in Afghanistan like we didn't go to North Africa to stay in North Africa. We beat the Nazis out of there then moved on.

Likewise with Afghanistan, we are not at war with Afghans, we are there to help them, we are at war with jihadis, terrorists, state sponsors.

Already we are launching drone strikes into Pakistan. We should escalate into taking our more significant Taliban targets in Pakistan, such as the University of Jihad, such as Pakistani ISI forward bases.

We are confronting the jihadis wherever they appear in the world. No-one is "staying in Afghanistan" but it make an excellent forward base for operations into Pakistan.

It makes no difference, the terrorists are the people and the people support them, not the US. It doesn't matter, the US will lose.

The terrorists are not "the people" - they are the product of the state sponsor which recruits, indoctrinates, trains, arms and deploys them. Take out the state sponsor and that leaves the people on their own side, not the side of the terrorists.

The Allies can win easily enough, if we fight smart and don't fight dumb and stupid like our generals are doing.
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
Peter Dow
God Emperor Akhenaton
As I explained, you cannot win in Afghanistan.

Remember the Allies in world war 2 had our first significant ground victories against the Nazis in North Africa.

Now there was no way we could win the whole world war by simply liberating North Africa.

But we could win in North Africa and did so and that gave us the confidence to go on to win in Italy, win in France and finally win in Germany itself.

Sure we cannot win this whole global war on terror in Afghanistan only but, like North Africa was in WW2, Afghanistan was as good a place to start as anywhere.

Europe is different from Afghanistan, North Africa is different from Afghanistan, The Nazi's are different from Afghanistan. Do you not get it? Afghanistan has faced foes more powerful than the US and they have always won. They NEVER lost a war and they NEVER give up. Staying there is only going to amount to more deaths.

Yes the Nazis are different from Afghanistan. The Nazis were a political and military enemy - not the Germans, they were our friends, as soon as we got the Nazis beat.

Whereas Afghanistan is a place. We didn't go to North Africa to fight the North Africans we went to fight the Nazis.

Likewise, we didn't go to Afghanistan to fight the Afghans but the jihadis, the terrorists, the Taliban, all the state sponsors of terrorism.

Also we didn't go to Afganistan to stay in Afghanistan like we didn't go to North Africa to stay in North Africa. We beat the Nazis out of there then moved on.

Likewise with Afghanistan, we are not at war with Afghans, we are there to help them, we are at war with jihadis, terrorists, state sponsors.

Already we are launching drone strikes into Pakistan. We should escalate into taking our more significant Taliban targets in Pakistan, such as the University of Jihad, such as Pakistani ISI forward bases.

We are confronting the jihadis wherever they appear in the world. No-one is "staying in Afghanistan" but it make an excellent forward base for operations into Pakistan.

It makes no difference, the terrorists are the people and the people support them, not the US. It doesn't matter, the US will lose.

The terrorists are not "the people" - they are the product of the state sponsor which recruits, indoctrinates, trains, arms and deploys them. Take out the state sponsor and that leaves the people on their own side, not the side of the terrorists.

The Allies can win easily enough, if we fight smart and don't fight dumb and stupid like our generals are doing.

Terrorism is a broad term, but we are waging a war against the people. To think we have support there is ridiculous. Even Karzai supports the heroin fields.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games