Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Morgan

Turkey Accuses Us Of Favouring Kurds

Recommended Posts

There is justice in this universe!!!...Kurds get treated well by the USA, and so they should, for their continued support. I hope the Kurds gain "ownership" of some nice rich oil wells in their region, too.

Turkey is annoyed but Turkey reneged on its promised support for the US invasion of Iraq at the last minute...what does Turkey expect?

Too bad the Kurds can't be asked to help "patrol" Baghdad...I suspect not too many Iraqis would be dancing and celebrating GI deaths once the Kurds blew into town. After the Kurds "bust" the first celebration in their own inimitable "un-Geneva Convention-like" way, no more parties after that. No more thugs on the street-all sent to Allah-no more car bombs because houses on nearby streets would be leveled in retaliation for supporting terrorists...yes, I think the Kurds would restore law and order to Baghdad in a very efficient and timely fashion, don't you?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_turkey_usa_dc

Turkey Accuses U.S. of 'Favoritism' in Iraq

The Turkish ambassador in Washington said on Tuesday the United States was giving excessive favors to Kurdish groups in Iraq at the risk of encouraging civil war and Kurdish secession in the future.

Logoglu said the favoritism was reflected in the composition of the Iraqi Governing Council and interim Cabinet and in U.S. readiness to consider a federal constitution.

It also complained earlier in the year that the small Turkmen minority in Iraq, estimated at 2 percent of the population, had only one member on the Governing Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too bad the Kurds can't be asked to help "patrol" Baghdad...I suspect not too many Iraqis would be dancing and celebrating GI deaths once the Kurds blew into town. After the Kurds "bust" the first celebration in their own inimitable "un-Geneva Convention-like" way, no more parties after that. No more thugs on the street-all sent to Allah-no more car bombs because houses on nearby streets would be leveled in retaliation for supporting terrorists...yes, I think the Kurds would restore law and order to Baghdad in a very efficient and timely fashion, don't you?

Yeah, how dare those Iraqis lash out against their conquerers: what do they think? That it's their country? :rolleyes:

The Kurds deserve their own state or at least a voice in a rebuilt Iraq. But not at anyone else's expense.

However, while the Kurds have long been the whipping boys of the region (caught between the rock of Turkey and the hard place of Saddam Hussein), I fail to see how drafting Kurdish goons to brutalize the Iraqi population could serve any purpose beyond sparking a full-scale rebellion and civil war.

Put another way: you are a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. My suggestion at drafting the Kurds to patrol Baghdad was made in jest. My point was that the rules of the Geneva Convention inhibit the GI's from dealing effectively with the asymetrical warfare that's being waged against them in the Sunni Triangle. And in fact last week, an Iraqi official said himself that the US's limited terms of engagement were a handicap in dealing with the terrorists and that more Iraqis including former Republican Guard soldiers should be armed to deal with the terrorists in an Iraqi way. It doesn't take much imagination to consider what this Iraqi official meant by these comments.

2. But if we set aside my scenario made in jest, let's look at your comments about:

a) "Iraquis lashing out against their conquerers"...Huh? In most of Iraq including the Kurdish area in the north and the Basra area to the south, Iraqis are pretty content about coalition forces being present and don't want them to leave too soon. In fact, the majority of Iraqis are happy the Baathist "occupation" of Iraq has been broken. Only in the Sunni triangle is there violence and resistence against coalition forces.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?

id=500572BA-D3F0-4728-B554-405847CC59F0

A puzzling tale of two armies

by Bruce Wallace The Ottawa Citizen

-Iraq's carnage and chaos is very much a regional phenomenon...the British sector in southern Iraq remains relatively peaceful. "We don't have the same types of attacks as the Americans," Squadron Leader Alison Simmonds said in a telephone interview yesterday from the British headquarters in the country's second-largest city of Basra. "Most of the trouble we deal with is related to smuggling precious metals and petty looting. Generally, the people of Basra are happy to see us."

-The relative calm is widely attributed to the fact that southern Iraq is more heavily populated by Shiite Muslims, who may have a grudging view of the western presence, but still regard the Anglo-U.S. invasion as a liberation from Saddam Hussein's heavily Sunni Baathist party. By contrast, experts say roughly 70 per cent of the attacks on Americans are being carried out by former Baathists who remain loyal, if not to Mr. Saddam, to their own nostalgia for power in Iraq. The remainder are attacks carried out by Islamic militants hunting American targets and operating with relative freedom among a civilian population that resents the American presence.

-"We are seeing the de-Baathistification of southern Iraq, while the Baathists continue to fight on in Baghdad and central Iraq where the population is sullen about the Americans being there," says Toby Dodge of London's Royal Institute for International Affairs...

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19153,filte...news_detail.asp

What Iraqis Really Think

Wall Street Journal

Publication Date: September 10, 2003

-Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

-Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37 percent of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

-57 percent of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41 percent of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74 percent to 18 percent that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.

And on a more informal note:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vinc...00311040815.asp

Hacks of Baghdad:The cabbie read of Iraq.

By Steven Vincent

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/.../BNStory/Front/

There are good men in Iraq

By Margaret Wente

b. As for your remarks about "Kurdish goons brutalizing Iraqis"...once again you take liberties with your term "Iraqis"...be more specific...don't you mean "Baathists?"

Baathists have brutalized Kurds and Shiites for years and yet no smug, self-righteous liberals worried about a minority regime of Saddam and his Baathist Party thugs brutalizing a majority of Iraqis.

Therefore, I find it rather amusing to read your concern about the potential for Kurdish brutality against Baathists now.

And btw, the Kurds were more than "whipping boys" for the Baathists, an understatement if I've ever heard one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who supplied Iraq with the chemical agents to gas the Kurds? After the Kurds were gassed which official of which country presented Saddam with a BS honorary title. I have the memory of a gold fish, anyone want to refresh it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the Left always like to accuse the USA of helping Saddam gas the Kurds.

Yet, strangely enough, the Kurds themselves don't hold that belief. In fact, much to the chagrin of left wingers, the Kurds love the Americans and have been supporting the Americans even before war against Saddam was formally declared by letting special ops scope out Iraq last fall.

Also, another strange fact is that the Kurds have not allowed any Baathists terrorize GI's for the past 6 months...you'd think if the left's accusations were accurate, the Kurds would have welcomed terrorists to kill GI's to get revenge on the US. But such is not the case.

Here's an article from Jane's to help you understand what the Kurds already know:

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcb...30417_1_n.shtml.

Who armed Iraq?

By Andy Oppenheimer

Sometimes through deception, but often with the silent acquiescence of Western governments, Iraq was able to acquire the machines, components, tools and expertise to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as its own ballistic missiles.

West German companies were some of the main suppliers for Iraq's major weapons projects, including its nuclear weapons programme, chemical weapons facilities, ballistic missiles and long-range 'supergun' development. German companies are said to have contributed to the Iraqi government's weapons programme since the mid-1970s. According to the 17 December 2002 edition of the German daily, Tageszeitung, some German companies continued to do business with Iraq right up until 2001. This would have been a clear breach of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait.

According to Tageszeitung, German companies comprise more than half of the total number of institutions listed in Iraq's 12,000-page weapons report to the UN in December 2002.

German assistance was allegedly given to Iraq for the development of chemical agents used in the 1988 massacre of Kurds in northern Iraq. After the massacre, the USA reduced its military co-operation with Iraq, but German firms continued their activities until the Gulf war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was that the rules of the Geneva Convention inhibit the GI's from dealing effectively with the asymetrical warfare that's being waged against them in the Sunni Triangle. And in fact last week, an Iraqi official said himself that the US's limited terms of engagement were a handicap in dealing with the terrorists and that more Iraqis including former Republican Guard soldiers should be armed to deal with the terrorists in an Iraqi way. It doesn't take much imagination to consider what this Iraqi official meant by these comments.

Do you endorse this? Because it seems to be a little strange that the so-called "liberators" would turn to the very people they ousted to keep order. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

As for your remarks about "Kurdish goons brutalizing Iraqis"...once again you take liberties with your term "Iraqis"...be more specific...don't you mean "Baathists?"

Baathists have brutalized Kurds and Shiites for years and yet no smug, self-righteous liberals worried about a minority regime of Saddam and his Baathist Party thugs brutalizing a majority of Iraqis.

Therefore, I find it rather amusing to read your concern about the potential for Kurdish brutality against Baathists now.

Did I say anything about Baathists? Nope. But don't let that stand in the way of your straw man argument.

Indeed, the Ba'athists brutalized and repressed the Kurds and Shites for years, yet no smug, self-righteous neocons worried about a minority regime of Saddam and his Baathist Party thugs brutalizing a majority of Iraqis.

Indeed, many of the same people who called for Saddam's head in the past year were his biggest cheerleaders during the 1980's when he was at th eheight of his brutality. Remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam the very same day Iraqi forces used U.S-built helicopters to gas Iranian troops and Kurdish villages?

Therefore, I find your willingness to champion the Kurdish cause while supporting the same folks who played major roles in the historical oppression of them to be rather amusing.

Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

Funny you'd bring this up...

Cheney, Institute distorted study's findings

Consider some of the other poll findings:

Over 55 percent give a negative rating to "how the U.S. military is dealing with Iraqi civilians. Only 20 percent gave the U.S. military a positive rating.

By a margin of 57 percent to 38.5 percent, Iraqis indicate they would support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.

When asked how they would describe the attacks on the U.S. military, 49 percent described them as "resistance operations." Only 29 percent saw them as attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists."

When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in their country, only 6.5 percent said the United States, while 27 percent said the U.S. and the UN together, 14.5 percent preferred only the UN, and the largest group, 45 percent, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the job alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I endorse is for US soldiers to be allowed more flexible rules of engagement to respond properly to asymetrical warfare that's being waged against them.

But more to the point is what Iraqis themselves endorse to deal with terrorists hiding and in some cases being supported by the Baathist-friendly civilian population. And it isn't limited rules of engagement that Iraqis would follow that's for sure.

Why don't you read up on what the Baathists did to innocent Iraqis over the years and then see if you still feel compassion for how Baathists and Al Feyadeen insurgents are to be treated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/internat...&partner=GOOGLE

Iraqis Seek Justice, or Vengeance, for Victims of the Killing Fields By SUSAN SACHS

Published: November 4, 2003

As for the Kurds, I have no doubt that they have taken care of Baathist and Al Feyadeen fighters whenever they have run up against them in their neck of the woods in Northern Iraq. I don't have a problem with those measures whatsoever.

As for the Zogbi poll, the positive poll results as posted in the WSJ by Mr. Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise magazine, which sponsored the Zogby poll,were confirmed by a Gallup poll that followed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/internat...7aa527b&ei=5070

In a Poll, Baghdad Residents Call Freedom Worth the Price By PATRICK E. TYLER

Published: September 24, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 23 — After five months of foreign military occupation and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents believe that the removal of the Iraqi dictator has been worth the hardships they have been forced to endure, a new Gallup poll shows.

Only 8 percent of those queried said they believed that their lives would be worse off as a result of the military campaign to remove Mr. Hussein and his Baath Party leadership from power...... 67 percent of 1,178 Iraqis told a Gallup survey team that within five years, their lives would be better than before the American and British invasion.

The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews from Aug. 28 through Sept. 4 across the ethnically diverse landscape of the battered capital... half the respondents said the occupation authority was doing a better job now than it was two months ago, and their view of Mr. Bremer himself was remarkably positive, with 47 percent holding a favorable view of him compared with 22 percent who held an unfavorable view.

Other key findings in that Gallup poll were that 71 percent of the capital city's residents felt U.S. troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26 percent felt the troops should leave that soon.

AND

Almost six in 10 in the poll, 58 percent, said that U.S. troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying ``very well.'' Twenty 20 percent said the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9 percent said very badly.

As for my cheering for the Kurds, what's your problem with that? The Kurds deserve a chunk of the Iraq pie. They stood up to Saddam in the past and they took risks in the present helping the Americans get rid of that monster. They currently occupy a stable part of Iraq for coalition forces.

Turkey has done nothing in this war to rid Iraq of Saddam. They're greedy for the oil wells in Northern Iraq. Too bad Turkey didn't take risks to help liberate Iraq like the Kurds did. Also, Kurds represent 16% of Iraqi population, whereas Turks only represent 2%. Enough said on who gets what percentage of Iraqi territory.

As for Saddam and the USA's "complicity" in gassing the Kurds...like I said before, only the Left thinks that's true. The Kurds sure don't... and I guess it's only the Kurds' opinions and what they know to be true is what is relevant, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, how dare those Iraqis lash out against their conquerers: what do they think? That it's their country? :rolleyes:

It is their country now abeit under temporary US occupation until free elections can occur. Here is what happens to the average Iraqi if he is not a member of the Regeime. I suppose that you feel that most Iraqis just love their old government, one that does this to children? This incidently was the motivating factor in al Raheiffs action.

Although an uncle was active in Saddam Hussein’s Baath political party, his immediate family did not support the party, the Iraqi lawyer said. That lack of party membership led to the denial of a needed kidney transplant for his mother, he said. It also led to the harvesting of a lung from his young daughter, who suffered respiratory problems caused by inhaling a pistachio shell fragment, but was diagnosed as having tuberculosis, he said, so that her lung could be implanted in the daughter of a Baath party official.

Nothing like a benevolent government to watch over your kids.

IRAQI HEALTH CARE SYSTEM (MEMBERS ONLY)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you read up on what the Baathists did to innocent Iraqis over the years and then see if you still feel compassion for how Baathists and Al Feyadeen insurgents are to be treated.

I fail to see the point of carrying on a discussion with someone who is incapable of making the obvious distinction between concern for average and the so-called "Ba'athist insurgents".

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suit yourself, Black Dog.

But keep in mind that the uber tolerant distinction that you make between "average and so-called Baathist insurgents" is not shared by Iraqis living under threat of violence by Baathist party members.

Rather than be guilty of cross-posting a message in its entirety, I'll merely direct you to an Iraqi run blog from which I cut and pasted today under the subject heading of "Iraq is on track."

This Iraqi blogger states matter-of-factly that living in a neighbourhood "with a large number of ex-Baathists/Wahhabis/extremists" is extremely dangerous.

So you see, the Iraqi blogger lumps Baathists together with other "bad guys" and unlike yourself, doesn't see a difference between "average and so-called Baathist insurgents."

Call me crazy, but I think this Iraqi blogger's viewpoint might be more valid because it's reality and not merely PC theory based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE]-Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37 percent of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

if you go directly to the study

http://www.taemag.com/docLib/20030905_Iraq...Frequencies.pdf

i found the answer to which country to model your gov after the US came in at 23% not 37%.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be some kind of statistical "weighting" that TAE editor in chief, Karl Zinsmeister, used to summarize the poll's findings in his Wall Street Journal 9/10/03 article, which I cut and pasted, versus the raw data published on his site.

If you'll notice there are disparities in the %'s quoted in Zinsmeister's WSJ article vs the taemag.com pdf with regards to the second place country, Saudi Arabia, as well as the USA.

For example Saudi Arabia's % appears as 17% in the pdf. but in the WSJ article, Zinsmeister quotes its % as 28%.

If you want to contact Mr. Zinsmeister with your concerns/questions about the statistics he used in the WSJ article versus the raw data , here's where you can direct your letter:

...We welcome Letters to the Editor, all of which are considered for publication (unless you tell us they’re not for printing).

To be considered for publication, your letter must include your name, a valid return e-mail address, and your home town.

E-mail letters to [email protected]

or

Fax them to (202) 862-5867

or

Write “The Mail”

The American Enterprise

1150 17th Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what they did is ignore the "none" and "other" responses which made up 37% of the responses. of the remaining 5 choices, the US made up 37% of the choices. you can tell by the raw data

very misleading as 15% chose nations not listed and 22% chose none of the nations listed.

thats like saying, what do you think should happen to gay people?

1. burn to death 20%

2. die slow deaths 10%

3. dont know 22%

4. other 17%

5. be left alone 31%

and you claim that "given the option of methods for dealing with gays 66% of people choose burning to death over dieing slow deaths given the option between the two."

talk about false information. and people dont even notice it because nobody knows cares about the methods.

ahh, but just enough case of a scientific thought and critical reasoning causing trouble i suppose

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats like saying, what do you think should happen to gay people?

1. burn to death 20%

2. die slow deaths 10%

3. dont know 22%

4. other 17%

5. be left alone 31%

Riff, you are a typical irrational, emotional liberal. I have no idea if you are a liberal but you are the rest. Logic dictates that those who do not respond ......... don't respond. Maybe because they are secret agents of OBL, maybe they are undercover US agents or maybe they just don't give a shit.

Now back to your hypothetical survey.

1. burn to death 20%

2. don't give a shit 10%

3. dont give a shit 22%

4. don't give a shit 17%

5. be left alone 31%

So what we are left with is 20% want homos to burn to death and 31% should have them be left alone. Not an overwhelming majority on either side but shows that there is a lot of room to work on. Both for firewood sellers and pink polyester pant manufacturers. And ... those who take polls.

Get an argument that makes sense and bring it to us please, otherwise you are just ranting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Riff,

Your theory about Mr. Zinsmeister presenting false information in his WSJ article does not make sense.

a. You say that he added the "other and none" figures to make the USA's total 37%. But if he did that for the USA, then where did he get the additional figures to inflate Saudi Arabia's % to 28% in the WSJ article from the 17% as listed in the raw data pdf? According to your theory of fudging numbers for the USA,why would he do it for Saudi Arabia as well and where would he get the extra 11% once he used up the "none and other" for the USA?

b. Mr. Zinsmeister has an impeccable reputation. I don't think he'd risk his reputation over "fudging" numbers on behalf of the USA, especially when he also directs folks to original raw data that his company commissioned.

KARL ZINSMEISTER

As editor in chief, Karl Zinsmeister conceives, assigns, and edits each issue of The American Enterprise, and writes all but a few of the "Bird's Eye" essays that introduce the special theme of every installment. He also produces many of the magazine’s short items, and contributes occasional feature articles on topics like television, fatherhood, race politics, suburban architecture, and school failure. Thanks to the telecom miracle he does all this from rural New York, 400 miles from the magazine's Washington production office.

Karl’s new book, Boots on the Ground: A Month with the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq, based on his observations as an embedded combat reporter during the second Iraq war, was released in August by St. Martin’s Press. It is the very first narrative of the war, and a main selection of the Military Book Club.

Zinsmeister is also J.B. Fuqua Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the major Washington, D.C. think tank that is the magazine's publisher. His research has spanned demographic and social trends, economics, politics, and cultural topics. He has been published in many places in addition to The American Enterprise, including The Atlantic Monthly, Reader's Digest, The Wilson Quarterly, The Public Interest, National Review, Reason, Commentary, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Zinsmeister originated a weekly radio commentary on social and economic trends syndicated nationally to 100 stations, and has written newspaper columns for the United Feature Syndicate. He has appeared often on television and radio programs including CNN's Crossfire, ABC's Politically Incorrect, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, PBS' Think Tank, BBC World Service, and many others.

Karl’s first job in Washington was as an assistant to Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the U.S. Senate. Zinsmeister supported his family by working as a carpenter on Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Hill while launching his writing career. Once established, he was self-employed as a writer for most of a decade.

Zinsmeister is a graduate of Yale University and did further studies in history at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland (the best part of his education). During college he won national rowing championships in both the U.S. and Ireland.

He has testified before Congressional committees and Presidential commissions numerous times, and has been an advisor to various research and policy groups. His writing has won several national prizes, and been translated into Japanese, German, Spanish, French, Swedish, Chinese, and other languages.

He is a sixth generation resident of his region of central New York, where he and his wife and three children live in a rural village.

c. If you are truly concerned about the variances in figures quoted for the USA as well as Saudi Arabia in the WSJ vs taemag, then email Mr. Zinsmeister and ask him for his reasons. If you are sure he has fudged on the numbers to favour the USA [and Saudi Arabia], challenge him. I have no doubt he will reply to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But keep in mind that the uber tolerant distinction that you make between "average and so-called Baathist insurgents" is not shared by Iraqis living under threat of violence by Baathist party members.

As a subset of the previous discussion, I have to ask: what evidence is there that teh gurilla movement in Iraq is in fact composed of " Baathist party members" or "Al Q'aida elements", betond daily sermons from this particular Gospel according to Rumsfeld? Is it not within the realm of possibility that nationalist concerns may drive many to armed struggle against an occupying power (in much the same way as the British were driven out in the last century)? This i ssomething I've been curious about for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...