Home » Wars » Page 2
Tag:

Wars

world

Nobel Peace Prize: The One Rejector Revealed!

by James Carter Senior News Editor
written by James Carter Senior News Editor

The Paradox of Peace Prizes: When Recognition Undermines the Pursuit of Lasting Resolution

Nearly half a century ago, a Nobel Peace Prize sat unclaimed. Le Duc Tho, the Vietnamese negotiator, refused the award in 1973, citing the lack of genuine peace in South Vietnam despite a signed armistice. This act, largely overshadowed by Henry Kissinger’s acceptance, raises a critical question: can the pursuit of recognition – even the world’s most prestigious – sometimes hinder the very peace it intends to reward? As Venezuela’s María Corina Machado recently joined the ranks of Peace Prize laureates, and figures like Donald Trump publicly covet the honor, understanding the complexities of this award, and its potential for both inspiration and unintended consequences, is more vital than ever.

The Allure and the Ambiguity of the Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize, established by Alfred Nobel’s will, aims to honor those who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” However, the criteria are inherently subjective, leaving the selection process open to interpretation and, inevitably, controversy. The prize has been awarded to individuals and organizations representing a vast spectrum of approaches to peace, from humanitarian efforts like Mother Teresa’s to political negotiations like those involving Yasser Arafat. This breadth, while showcasing the multifaceted nature of peacebuilding, also highlights the potential for dissonance and disagreement.

The very act of awarding a prize can inadvertently politicize a conflict. Machado’s recent award, for example, has drawn criticism and sparked debate about the United States’ role in Venezuelan politics, with Obama’s congratulatory message adding another layer of complexity. This isn’t new. The 1973 situation with Le Duc Tho demonstrates that a premature celebration of peace, even with good intentions, can undermine ongoing efforts and potentially legitimize incomplete or fragile agreements.

Beyond the Ceremony: The Long-Term Impact of Recognition

The immediate impact of a Nobel Peace Prize is undeniable: increased visibility, a platform for advocacy, and often, significant financial resources. But what about the long-term consequences? Nobel Peace Prize winners often face heightened scrutiny and expectations, which can be both empowering and paralyzing. The pressure to maintain a “peaceful” image can limit their ability to engage in difficult compromises or challenge established power structures.

“Did you know?” box: Le Duc Tho’s refusal wasn’t simply a symbolic gesture. He argued that accepting the prize would be a betrayal of his people, as the conflict continued to rage and the future of South Vietnam remained uncertain. His decision underscored a fundamental principle: true peace must be demonstrable, not merely declared.

Furthermore, the prize can sometimes create a false sense of accomplishment, diverting attention and resources from the ongoing work required to build sustainable peace. This is particularly relevant in protracted conflicts where the root causes of violence remain unaddressed. The focus shifts from the messy, complex process of peacebuilding to the celebratory narrative surrounding the award.

The Rise of “Peace-Washing” and the Erosion of Trust

A concerning trend is the potential for “peace-washing” – where individuals or organizations use the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize to deflect criticism or legitimize questionable actions. This is particularly relevant in an era of increasing geopolitical tensions and information warfare. The award can become a shield against accountability, allowing recipients to portray themselves as champions of peace while simultaneously pursuing policies that undermine it.

“Expert Insight:” Dr. Anya Sharma, a conflict resolution specialist at the Institute for Peace Studies, notes, “The Nobel Peace Prize carries immense symbolic weight. However, it’s crucial to remember that it’s a recognition of past efforts, not a guarantee of future success. Recipients must be held accountable for their actions and the impact they have on the ground.”

This erosion of trust extends to the prize itself. As the selection process becomes increasingly politicized, and as controversies surrounding past awards continue to surface, the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize is at risk. This could diminish its power to inspire and mobilize action, ultimately hindering the pursuit of genuine peace.

Future Trends: Towards a More Nuanced Approach to Peace Recognition

So, what does the future hold for the Nobel Peace Prize and the broader landscape of peace recognition? Several trends are emerging:

A Shift Towards Grassroots Activism

There’s a growing recognition of the vital role played by grassroots activists and local peacebuilders. Future awards may increasingly focus on individuals and organizations working directly with communities affected by conflict, rather than solely on high-profile political figures. This aligns with a broader trend towards bottom-up approaches to peacebuilding, emphasizing local ownership and sustainability.

Increased Emphasis on Accountability

Expect greater scrutiny of Nobel Peace Prize recipients, with increased demands for transparency and accountability. Civil society organizations and investigative journalists will likely play a more prominent role in monitoring the actions of laureates and holding them accountable for their commitments to peace.

The Rise of Alternative Peace Prizes

We may see the emergence of alternative peace prizes that prioritize different criteria and values. These awards could focus on specific aspects of peacebuilding, such as environmental peace, economic justice, or gender equality, offering a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to recognition.

“Pro Tip:” When evaluating the impact of a peace prize, look beyond the ceremony and focus on the tangible outcomes. Has the award led to concrete improvements in the lives of those affected by conflict? Has it fostered dialogue and reconciliation? Has it contributed to a more just and sustainable peace?

Data-Driven Peacebuilding and the Measurement of Impact

The field of peacebuilding is increasingly embracing data-driven approaches. Future awards may consider incorporating metrics to assess the long-term impact of peace initiatives, moving beyond subjective assessments to more objective evaluations. This could involve tracking indicators such as reductions in violence, improvements in governance, and increased access to education and healthcare.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the main reason Le Duc Tho refused the Nobel Peace Prize?

Le Duc Tho refused the prize because he believed that genuine peace had not yet been established in South Vietnam, despite the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. He felt accepting the award would be a betrayal of his people.

Is the Nobel Peace Prize always a positive thing for the recipient?

Not necessarily. While it brings recognition and resources, it also brings intense scrutiny and pressure, and can sometimes be used for “peace-washing” or create a false sense of accomplishment.

How can the Nobel Peace Prize become more effective in promoting peace?

By prioritizing grassroots activism, emphasizing accountability, incorporating data-driven evaluations, and potentially diversifying the criteria for selection.

What is “peace-washing”?

“Peace-washing” is the practice of using the prestige of a peace award to deflect criticism or legitimize actions that are not genuinely peaceful.

The story of Le Duc Tho serves as a potent reminder that peace is not merely the absence of war, but a complex and ongoing process. The Nobel Peace Prize, while a powerful symbol, is just one piece of the puzzle. True and lasting peace requires sustained commitment, critical self-reflection, and a willingness to challenge the status quo – even if it means refusing a coveted award.

What are your thoughts on the role of recognition in peacebuilding? Share your perspective in the comments below!

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
News

What did Trump say in his speech before the UN? Here we verify it

by James Carter Senior News Editor
written by James Carter Senior News Editor

Trump’s UN Speech: A Torrent of Criticism and Questionable Claims – Breaking News

New York, NY – September 23, 2025 – Former President Donald Trump delivered a fiery and often contentious address to the United Nations General Assembly today, leveling sharp criticisms at numerous countries and institutions, while simultaneously touting his own record. The speech, immediately drawing both praise and condemnation, was marked by familiar Trumpian rhetoric and a series of claims quickly challenged by fact-checkers at PolitiFact. This is a developing story, and archyde.com is providing up-to-the-minute coverage.

Climate Change “Farce” and Suicidal Policies

Trump wasted no time in reiterating his long-held skepticism about climate change, branding it “the greatest farce ever perpetrated in the world.” He went further, asserting that climate change policies, coupled with what he termed permissive immigration laws, represent a “suicide” for nations. This stance sharply contrasts with the overwhelming scientific consensus on the urgency of addressing climate change and the need for international cooperation.

A Diplomatic Clash with Brazil’s Lula

The speech wasn’t without direct confrontations. A notable exchange occurred following remarks by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who criticized recent incidents involving U.S. actions against Venezuelan vessels, alleging they were drug carriers. Trump, a known ally of Lula’s predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, expressed regret over Brazil’s current “precarious situation” while suggesting a future meeting with Lula. The tension highlights the shifting geopolitical landscape in South America and the complex relationship between the U.S. and Brazil.

Questionable Claims of Peacemaker

Trump repeatedly emphasized his success in resolving global conflicts, boldly claiming to have “put an end to seven endless wars” in just seven months. However, a detailed analysis by PolitiFact reveals this claim to be significantly misleading. While the Trump administration facilitated some de-escalation in conflicts involving Cambodia, Thailand, Israel, Iran, India, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Armenia and Azerbaijan, these were often fragile agreements or involved limited U.S. intervention. The situation in Kosovo and Serbia, for example, showed no imminent threat of war prior to his involvement. The narrative of Trump as a decisive peacemaker doesn’t fully align with the realities on the ground.

(Image Placeholder: Donald Trump at the UN General Assembly. Credit: AP)

Venezuela and the Drug War: A Disputed Narrative

Trump asserted the U.S. is using “Supreme Military Power” to dismantle drug trafficking networks in Venezuela, led by President Nicolás Maduro. While U.S. forces have indeed engaged with vessels off the Venezuelan coast, resulting in casualties, experts question the extent of Venezuela’s role in the flow of drugs to the United States. PolitiFact reports that most fentanyl originates in Mexico, and cocaine primarily comes from Colombia. While Venezuelan officials may be complicit in some drug trafficking, there’s limited evidence of a large-scale, government-sponsored operation targeting the U.S.

Distorting Data on Migrant Children and Economic Performance

Perhaps the most demonstrably false claims revolved around migrant children and the U.S. economy. Trump alleged that over 300,000 children have “disappeared” under the Biden administration, a claim directly contradicted by a recent Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report. The report indicates that approximately 32,000 unaccompanied children failed to appear at their court hearings – a concerning issue, but far from a disappearance. Furthermore, Trump’s assertions about a booming economy under his leadership were a mixed bag. While mortgage rates have decreased, energy and food prices have risen, and inflation remains a persistent concern. His claim that China has limited wind power capacity was also unequivocally false, with China leading the world in wind energy production.

The Ever-Evolving Landscape of Global Diplomacy

Trump’s speech underscores the enduring challenges facing the United Nations and the complexities of international relations. The organization, often criticized for its bureaucracy and ineffectiveness, remains a vital forum for dialogue and cooperation. Understanding the nuances of these diplomatic interactions – and critically evaluating the claims made by world leaders – is crucial for informed citizenship. The ability to discern fact from fiction, especially in the age of rapid information dissemination, is more important than ever. Staying informed about global events and seeking out reliable sources like PolitiFact and archyde.com is essential for navigating this complex world.

For ongoing updates and in-depth analysis of the UN General Assembly and related developments, continue to check back with archyde.com. We are committed to providing accurate, unbiased reporting and empowering our readers with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Entertainment

Kursk Nuclear Plant: Ukraine Drone Fire Raises Alarm

by Marina Collins - Entertainment Editor
written by Marina Collins - Entertainment Editor

The New Era of Asymmetric Warfare: How Ukraine’s Drone Strikes Are Redefining 21st-Century Conflict

A single, seemingly contained incident – a fire at a Russian nuclear plant ignited by a Ukrainian drone – reveals a seismic shift in modern warfare. While thankfully no radiation leak occurred, the event, coinciding with Ukraine’s Independence Day, isn’t about a single strike; it’s a harbinger of a future where asymmetric tactics, particularly drone warfare, are increasingly central to conflict, challenging traditional power dynamics and raising the stakes for global security. The recent surge in drone activity, extending even to Polish airspace, signals a new normal that demands urgent attention and strategic adaptation.

The Rise of the Drone Swarm: A Cost-Effective Revolution

The reports of 95 intercepted drones over Russian territory, countered by Ukraine’s claim of 72 launched, illustrate the sheer scale of this new offensive capability. This isn’t about sophisticated, expensive military hardware; it’s about the proliferation of relatively inexpensive drones capable of inflicting significant disruption. Ukraine’s strategy, born of necessity, demonstrates how a smaller force can leverage technology to target critical infrastructure – power facilities, fuel terminals like Ust-Luga, and even symbolic targets – forcing a larger adversary to expend resources on defense and diverting attention from conventional offensives. This is a classic example of drone warfare, and its effectiveness is forcing a reassessment of defense strategies worldwide.

Nuclear Facilities as Targets: A Dangerous Escalation

The attack on the Kursk nuclear plant is particularly alarming. While the fire was contained and radiation levels remained normal, the incident underscores the vulnerability of nuclear infrastructure in the age of drone warfare. Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), rightly emphasized the need to protect all nuclear facilities “at all times.” This raises critical questions about the adequacy of existing security protocols and the potential for future, more damaging attacks. The risk isn’t necessarily a direct strike causing a meltdown, but rather the disruption of cooling systems or other essential functions, potentially leading to a catastrophic event. This necessitates a global conversation about enhanced safeguards and the development of counter-drone technologies specifically designed for nuclear sites. You can find more information on nuclear safety protocols at the IAEA website.

Beyond Ukraine: The Global Implications

The lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine are already reverberating globally. The effectiveness of drones in disrupting critical infrastructure has prompted nations to invest heavily in both offensive and defensive drone capabilities. We’re likely to see a surge in “counter-drone” technologies – systems designed to detect, identify, and neutralize unmanned aerial vehicles. However, this is an arms race with no easy solution. Drones are becoming increasingly sophisticated, utilizing AI and swarm tactics to overwhelm defenses. The challenge lies not just in shooting down drones, but in preventing them from being launched in the first place – a task that requires intelligence gathering, border security, and international cooperation.

Zelenskyy’s Vision and the Shifting Geopolitical Landscape

President Zelenskyy’s Independence Day address, emphasizing Ukraine’s right to self-determination and a “just peace,” highlights the broader geopolitical implications of this conflict. His assertion that “what our future will be is up to us alone” reflects a growing sense of Ukrainian agency and a determination to resist external interference. The U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, while seemingly unrelated, underscores the complex web of international relations at play. Ukraine’s ability to effectively defend itself, even with limited resources, is forcing a reassessment of the balance of power in Eastern Europe and beyond. The conflict is also accelerating the development of new military doctrines and technologies, focusing on adaptability, resilience, and the exploitation of asymmetric advantages.

The Black Sea as a Testing Ground

The ongoing battles in the Black Sea, with both Russia and Ukraine striking resort cities, demonstrate the expanding scope of the conflict. This maritime dimension adds another layer of complexity, as drones and naval assets clash in a strategically vital region. Control of the Black Sea is crucial for both countries’ economies and security, and the fighting is likely to intensify as both sides seek to gain an advantage. This area is becoming a key testing ground for new naval drone technologies and tactics.

The future of warfare is undeniably shaped by the lessons emerging from Ukraine. The age of large-scale, conventional battles is giving way to a new era of asymmetric conflict, characterized by the proliferation of drones, the targeting of critical infrastructure, and the blurring of lines between war and peace. Adapting to this new reality requires a fundamental shift in strategic thinking, technological investment, and international cooperation. What defensive strategies will prove most effective against increasingly sophisticated drone swarms? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Economy

Basketball Star Kirk Penney’s Trial by Fire in the Supermarket Diaper Wars: Navigating the Challenges of the Nappy Industry

by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy
written by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy





Treasures Brand Dispute Unveils Cutthroat Tactics and Broken Alliances

Table of Contents

Auckland, New Zealand – A protracted legal dispute surrounding the relaunch of the Treasures toy brand has exposed a web of corporate maneuvering, allegations of confidential details misuse, and a strained relationship between prominent business figures. the case, currently before the High Court, centers on claims that the JJK Group improperly obtained information while attempting to revive the once-popular toy line.

The Opportunity Emerges Following Treasures’ Closure

The seeds of the conflict were sown in mid-2020, when the original treasures business ceased operations. Jarrod Armitage and James Collie, recognizing a potential opportunity, joined forces with Penney to explore a possible acquisition and relaunch of the brand. They formally established the JJK Group to pursue this venture.

Seeking Expert Guidance and Facing Roadblocks

Early discussions included grant Taylor, the founder of the successful Rascals nappy brand, as a potential consultant. Taylor’s prior success – his company reaching a valuation of approximately $30 million before being acquired by Zuru – made him a valuable sounding board. However, a pre-existing “restraint of trade” agreement with Zuru prevented Taylor from formally joining the JJK Group. JJK maintains they only sought “high-level” advice from Taylor, while Zuru alleges that confidential information was improperly accessed.

Escalating Tensions and a Multi-Million Dollar Claim

The situation escalated when Zuru initiated legal action, initially targeting JJK, Grant Taylor, and his father, Keith. While the claims against the Taylors were settled out of court with Grant Taylor admitting breaches of confidence and paying $1 million, Zuru continues to pursue damages exceeding $75 million from JJK.The core of Zuru’s argument centers on the alleged improper use of information obtained through Taylor.

Woolworths Caught in the Crossfire

The dispute took another turn when Nick Mowbray, a principal at Zuru, alerted Woolworths – a key potential retail partner for the relaunched Treasures brand – to the lawsuit. Mowbray reportedly threatened an injunction that could halt the sale of Treasures products. This prompted Woolworths to halt initial orders, forcing JJK to absorb significant warehousing and distribution costs that had originally been planned to be covered by direct shipment from factories in China. Angela Deehan,woolworths’ general manager of grocery non-foods,testified that the supermarket chain sought to protect itself from potential losses should the injunction materialize.

A Contentious Recording and a Desperate Sale

Further complicating matters, a secretly recorded conversation between Penney and Nick Mowbray in 2022 surfaced during trial proceedings. Penney asserted that the conversation was intended to be “off-the-record” and expressed surprise that it had been taped. As the legal battle dragged on, Penney explored options to exit JJK, ultimately finding only one potential buyer: Nick Mowbray himself. In mid-2024, Penney met with Mowbray, who agreed to acquire JJK, effectively ending the dispute.

Missed Opportunities and a Bitter Reflection

Penney believes the entire ordeal could have been avoided if either Zuru or the Mowbrays had made a more competitive offer for Treasures when it initially became available in 2020. JJK secured the brand with a bid of $300,000, while Zuru’s offer was reported to be only $200,000. Penney lamented the tactics employed by Zuru,characterizing them as a intentional strategy to drain JJK’s resources and limit its options.

Key Player role affiliation
Jarrod Armitage Co-founder JJK Group
James Collie Co-founder JJK Group
Penney Co-founder JJK group
Grant Taylor Former Consultant Rascals,Zuru (formerly)
Nick Mowbray Principal Zuru

Did you know that corporate disputes often hinge on the interpretation of non-compete agreements and confidentiality clauses?

Pro Tip: Always thoroughly vet potential partners and consultants for existing contractual obligations before engaging in sensitive business negotiations.

The Broader Implications of Corporate Disputes

This case underscores the importance of due diligence, clear contractual agreements, and the potential pitfalls of relying on information obtained from individuals with existing obligations to othre companies. Such disputes are becoming increasingly common as businesses navigate complex competitive landscapes and seek to protect their intellectual property and market share.the reliance on non-disclosure agreements and the careful handling of confidential information are paramount.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Treasures Dispute

  • What is the core of the dispute regarding Treasures? The dispute centers around allegations that the JJK Group improperly obtained confidential information while attempting to relaunch the Treasures brand.
  • What role did Grant Taylor play in the Treasures dispute? grant Taylor was initially sought as a consultant by JJK, but his existing agreement with Zuru prevented him from formally joining the venture.
  • How did Woolworths become involved in the Treasures dispute? Zuru alerted Woolworths to the lawsuit, prompting the supermarket chain to halt initial orders, impacting JJK’s financial planning.
  • What was the ultimate resolution of the dispute? Nick Mowbray of Zuru acquired JJK, bringing the legal battle to an end.
  • What lessons can businesses learn from this case? The case highlights the importance of due diligence, clear contracts, and protecting confidential information.
  • What is the meaning of the secretly recorded conversation? The recording revealed tense dynamics and raised questions about the transparency of negotiations.
  • How much money was sought in damages by Zuru? Zuru sought more then $75 million in compensation and damages from JJK.

What are your thoughts on the aggressive tactics employed in this business dispute? Share your views in the comments below!



How did Kirk Penney’s background as a basketball player prepare or fail to prepare him for the challenges of the diaper industry?

Basketball Star Kirk Penney’s Trial by Fire in the Supermarket Diaper Wars: Navigating the Challenges of the Nappy Industry

From Court to Cart: Penney’s Unexpected Venture

Kirk Penney, the celebrated New Zealand basketball player known for his sharpshooting and leadership on the court, made a surprising pivot post-retirement: the fiercely competitive world of baby diapers. His investment in “little Wonders,” a direct-to-consumer (DTC) diaper brand, initially seemed like a slam dunk. However,Penney quickly discovered the nappy industry is a far cry from the hardwood,presenting a unique set of challenges. This article delves into Penney’s experience, exploring the hurdles of entering the diaper market, the complexities of baby care products, and the strategies employed to survive the “supermarket diaper wars.”

The Competitive Landscape: A Battle for Bottoms

The diaper industry is dominated by established giants like Pampers (Procter & Gamble) and Huggies (Kimberly-Clark). These brands benefit from decades of brand recognition, massive marketing budgets, and established supply chains. Penney’s Little Wonders, like many emerging nappy brands, faced an uphill battle for shelf space – and more importantly, consumer trust.

Here’s a breakdown of the key competitive pressures:

Price Wars: Established brands frequently engage in promotional pricing, making it difficult for newcomers to compete on cost alone. Diaper prices are a significant factor for budget-conscious parents.

Retailer Dominance: Supermarkets and big-box stores wield significant power, dictating terms and demanding high margins from suppliers. Securing prime shelf placement is crucial, but expensive.

Brand Loyalty: Parents often stick with brands they trust, making it challenging to sway them towards a new product. Baby product reviews and word-of-mouth play a vital role.

Supply Chain Disruptions: The diaper supply chain, reliant on raw materials like wood pulp and superabsorbent polymers, is vulnerable to disruptions, impacting production costs and availability.

Navigating the Supply Chain Maze

Penney’s initial optimism was tempered by the realities of sourcing materials. The diaper manufacturing process is complex, requiring specialized equipment and a reliable supply of high-quality components.

Raw Material Costs: Fluctuations in the price of wood pulp, a key ingredient in diapers, significantly impacted Little Wonders’ profitability.

Manufacturing Capacity: Finding a reliable manufacturer capable of meeting demand without compromising quality proved difficult. Many facilities were already committed to larger contracts.

Logistics & Distribution: Efficiently transporting diapers from the manufacturer to consumers, especially with the rise of online diaper delivery, required a robust logistics network.

Sustainability Concerns: Increasing consumer demand for eco-pleasant diapers and biodegradable nappies added another layer of complexity, requiring investment in sustainable materials and manufacturing processes.

Marketing to Parents: Beyond Traditional Advertising

Penney leveraged his celebrity status to initially generate buzz around Little Wonders. though, sustained growth required a more nuanced marketing strategy.

Digital Marketing Focus: Targeted advertising on social media platforms like Facebook and instagram, focusing on parents with young children, proved effective. Parenting blogs and influencer collaborations were also key.

Content Marketing: Creating informative content about baby care, diaper rash prevention, and potty training established Little Wonders as a trusted resource for parents.

Subscription Services: Offering a convenient diaper subscription box service provided recurring revenue and fostered customer loyalty.

Emphasis on Product Differentiation: Highlighting Little Wonders’ unique features – such as hypoallergenic materials, superior absorbency, and stylish designs – helped differentiate the brand from competitors. Cloth diapering is also a growing trend that Little Wonders needed to acknowledge.

The Rise of DTC and the Changing retail Landscape

Penney’s decision to launch little Wonders as a DTC brand was strategic. It allowed him to bypass traditional retail channels and build a direct relationship with consumers.

Higher Profit Margins: Selling directly to consumers eliminated the need to share profits with retailers.

Data-Driven Insights: Direct access to customer data enabled little Wonders to personalize marketing efforts and improve

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
@2025 - All Right Reserved.

Hosted by ByoHosting - Most Recommendeed Webhhosting. For complains, abuse, advertising contact:
[email protected]

Adblock Detected

Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website.