a war - a war

PaganToris · 2003-03-16 21:26:52

I heard that the war might start tomrrow what are the real words on this anyone know?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-17 01:20:13

According to today's papers here in Australia, the foreign embassies in Baghdad have packed up everything and written their 'returning to ..... for consultations' letters for presentation to the Iraqi government. (Fill in the appropriate capital city in the gap! )

Our Prime Minister, John Howard, has said things will come to a head this week some time. It looks like the war will start very soon but I don't know about tomorrow.

I suspect it will go according to plan and be a very short affair. I wouldn't be surprised if it's essentially all over in less than a week. There may be a few pockets of troublesome resistance among die-hard fanatics but Iraq is a comparatively secular country with a reasonably well-educated populace. I judge them to be more concerned with day-to-day practicalities than Islamic extremism. And I think the prospect of an open society, free of the tyranny of Saddam and with a chance for a democratic and prosperous future for their children, will bring about a startling transformation in the Iraqi people.
Like the people of the Soviet Union in 1941, I predict they'll be welcoming the 'invading' troops in the streets once they realise Saddam's evil influence has been abolished.

They're floating on oil! These people have a very bright future as part of the secular world and I think they're smart enough to grasp this fact.

What remains to be seen is how well Iraq is managed after its liberation. America, Britain, Australia, and others would be foolish not to make Iraq a shining example of what democracy and prosperity can do - in stark contrast to the feudal clerical autocracies all around it. And the rebuilding of Afghanistan must be speeded up also as part of this same strategy.

After Iraq, I believe Iran will have to be dealt with - especially now they are engaged in an accelerated nuclear reactor program 'for purely peaceful purposes'. But perhaps not until the people of North Korea, and surrounding countries, have been rescued from the amoral Kim Jong Il.
Then, the time will be ripe to push for a Palestinian state. The gentle removal of Arafat is under way already and Sharon is now known to be open to the creation of a Palestinian homeland [something I have always believed is crucial to any long-term and honourable peace]. With terrorist sponsorship from Iraq and Iran out of the way, an atmosphere conducive to compromise and negotiation may finally bring about the long awaited end to hostilities.

Bush, Blair and Howard (among others), obviously see Iraq as the critical 'first domino' in this process of reducing world tensions and, ultimately, defusing the worldwide terrorist problem.
It's looking more and more as though the war will happen, despite the ever-popular anti-American (hence pro-Saddam by default) movement whipped up by the world's media. So we'd better hope the 'coalition of the willing' has got it right!

Personally, I understand where they're coming from and I think they have got it right. But we'll find out quite soon now!

Byron · 2003-03-17 07:25:38

Shaun, if only more people shared in your brand of unending optimism! The idea of a democratic, secular Iraq is quite appealing...it'd sure solve a lot of problems in the Middle East for quite some time to come, especially if a Palestinian state is established in the near future.

The press is making it sound like the sky is falling with this crisis and that the U.S. would have to endure a firestorm of terrorist attacks, the economy will tank, etc. Let's hope your scenario turns out to be the one that is right!

My guess after all diplomatic options are exhaused, we have about a week before the order is given to begin the disarmament of Iraq...lets all hope the loss of life on both sides is held to an absolute minimum...

B

Bill White · 2003-03-17 07:46:23

I wish I could share Shaun's optimism. However I am much persuaded by comments I heard Tom Friedman make on a C-SPAN broadcast. He asked whether Iraq is the way it is because Saddam is an evil tyrant dictator or whether Saddam became an evil tyrant dictator because only an evil tyrant dictator could hold together, as a single nation, an Iraq with Ba'ath, Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd factions. Can you say "Persian Yugoslavia"?

* IF * the US intends to prevent the division of Iraq into parts perhaps the USA will need to become Saddam like in our governing of Iraq. That is not a good thing if we wish to slow al Qaeda recruitment.

We will win round #1 very very easily. Bye Bye Saddam. :-) It will be a good start.

But winning round #2, #3, #4 and so on will be much more difficult and I lack faith that President Bush will follow through with the nation building process or that the US taxpayers will support paying $100 billion to continue the occupation.

You choose - $100 billion for the people of Iraq or $100 billion for Mars or $100 billion in new tax cuts?

One scenario has Turkish tanks in Kirkuk. Another has a Kurd uprising spreading into Turkey, another has al Qaeda seeking new members among an Iraq grown weary under US occupation after 10 years.

But then I am usually persuaded by Tom Friedman:

Repairing the World
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Some days, you pick up the newspaper and you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let's see, the prime minister of Serbia just got shot, and if that doesn't seem like a bad omen then you missed the class on World War I. Our strongest ally for war in Iraq is Bulgaria ? a country I've always had a soft spot for, because it protected its Jews during World War II, but a country that's been on the losing side of every war in the last 100 years. Congress is renaming French fries "freedom fries." George Bush has managed to lose a global popularity contest to Saddam Hussein, and he's looking to build diplomatic support in Europe by flying to the Azores, a remote archipelago in the Atlantic, to persuade the persuaded leaders of Britain and Spain to stand firm with him. I guess the North Pole wasn't available. I've been to the Azores. It was with Secretary of State James Baker on, as I recall, one of his seven trips around the world to build support for Gulf War I. Mr. Baker used the Azores to refuel.
Having said all that, I am glad Mr. Bush is meeting with Tony Blair. In fact, I wish he would turn over leadership on the whole Iraq crisis to him. Mr. Blair has an international vision that Mr. Bush sorely needs. "President Bush should be in charge of marshaling the power for this war," says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, "and Tony Blair should be in charge of the vision for which that power should be applied."
Why? What does Tony Blair get that George Bush doesn't? The only way I can explain it is by a concept from the Kabbalah called "tikkun olam." It means, "to repair the world." If you listened to Tony Blair's speeches in recent weeks they contain something so strikingly absent from Mr. Bush's. Tony Blair constantly puts the struggle for a better Iraq within a broader context of moral concerns. Tony Blair always leaves you with the impression that for him the Iraq war is just one hammer and one nail in an effort to do tikkun olam, to repair the world.
Did you see Mr. Blair's recent speech about the environment? He called for a new "international consensus to protect our environment and combat the devastating impacts of climate change." "Kyoto is not radical enough," he said. "Ultimately this is about our world as a global community. . . . What we lack at present is a common agenda that is broad and just. . . . That is the real task of statesmanship today."
Did you hear Mr. Blair talk Friday about the Middle East conflict? "We are right to focus on Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction," he said, "but we must put equal focus on the plight of the people whose lives are being devastated by lack of progress in the peace process. Israeli civilians and Palestinians."
Contrast that with Mr. Bush. His White House declaration about resuming the peace process was delivered with all the enthusiasm of someone about to have his teeth drilled. On the environment, the president has never appreciated how damaging it was for him to scrap the Kyoto treaty, which was unimplementable, without offering an alternative. Nothing has hurt America's image more than the impression Mr. Bush has left that when it comes to terrorism ? our war ? there must be a universal crusade, but on the environment ? the universal concern of others ? we'll do whatever we want.
Yes, some people and nations are just jealous of America's power and that's why they oppose us on Iraq. But there is something more to the opposition. I deeply identify with the president's vision of ending Saddam Hussein's tyranny and building a more decent, progressive Iraq. If done right, it could be so important to the future of the Arab-Muslim world, which is why I won't give up on this war. But can this Bush team be counted on to do it right? Mr. Bush's greatest weakness is that too many people, at home and abroad, smell that he's not really interested in repairing the world. Everything is about the war on terrorism.
Lord knows, I don't diminish the threats we face, but for 18 months all we've been doing is exporting our fears to the world. Virtually all of Mr. Bush's speeches are about how we're going to protect ourselves and whom we're going to hit next. America as a beacon of optimism ? America as the world's chief carpenter, not just cop ? is gone. We need a little less John Wayne and a little more J.F.K. Once we get this Iraq crisis behind us, we need to get back to exporting our hopes, not just our fears.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 09:31:06

anti-War != anti-American != pro-Saddam

dickbill · 2003-03-17 11:03:54

We all decides of something according to the informations we have, and basically the american opinion is submitted to a flux of informations supporting the war.
The last one was on history channel, about Saddam Hussein and his relations with the french. From the show it clearly ressorts that the frenchs supported the Irakis and that Jacques Chirac was a personnal friend of Saddam Hussein. That the Iraki nuclear ractor was build by the frenchs, in exchange of oil. Follows a show with that former Irakis nuclear scientist on how the Israeli destroyed it.
It's amazing to see at what speed History Channel can produce those propaganda-show. In the show, The defunt Isreali pilot/astronaut Mr Ramon is mentioned as he died in the space shuttle, so that this show has been produced in 2 or 3 weeks at best, which obviously doesn't leave the time for the journalists to investigate thouroughly about the topics they are talking about. I called it propaganda because if you mention only part of the truth and you ommit certains facts, then you can greatly deform the reallity.

So frenchs and Chirac a personnal friend of Saddam Hussein ?
Let see what Chirac says about that (I copied from CNN.com news, an interview by Ms Amanpour ):

"... AMANPOUR: The fact is, Mr. President, that in America many people think it's just because you are a friend, a pal of Saddam Hussein. That you have had long contacts with him, that you help build the nuclear reactor there, that there are the oil deals. You invited Saddam Hussein to France. There is a famous picture of you toasting him. They think it is about a personal and a business relationship.

CHIRAC: (laughter) That's myth, so to speak. Or controversy, if you will. I did indeed meet President Saddam Hussein when he was vice president in 1974 and '75, or '75 and '76. Never since. But in those days everybody had excellent relations with Saddam Hussein and with the Baath party. In those days it was seen as a modern party. Everybody had contacts with them.

I have not had any contacts ever since, and that is not something that everybody can say. Some important figures of the current U.S. administration had contacts with Saddam Hussein as late as 1983. I haven't. So we should not delve into controversy.

As for our interests, let us be clear about it. The trade of France with Iraq accounts for 0.2 percent of total French trade. So basically we have no economic interests in Iraq. Iraq isn't even in the list of the 60 largest trading partners of France. Not even the 60 largest.

As for oil import, they only account for 8 percent of Iraqi exports. The U.S. is importing five or six times more Iraqi petrol and Iraqi oil than we are importing. So these alleged motivations are clearly not serious motivations.

AMANPOUR: There have also been persistent allegations that Saddam Hussein put money into one of your electoral campaigns. How do you respond to that?

CHIRAC: (laughter) It's preposterous, really ... Anything can be said about anyone. As we say in French, "The larger it is, the more likely people will believe in it." I think really that is what we are talking about.

AMANPOUR: The New York Times has reported that there is evidence that French companies [are involved] in transferring materials for use in long-range Iraqi missiles. Are you aware of any French companies being involved in such an effort, and if so, what would you do to them?

CHIRAC: The New York Times is a serious newspaper, so as soon as I read this I led an inquiry into it. I will confirm the official statement, as published after this inquiry by the French foreign ministry. France and French companies have never endorsed or even provided such material to Iraq. So I am clearly dispelling this allegation. This too is insecure information. Or again, maybe controversial.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you again about the nuclear reactor [built by Iraq with French assistance and destroyed in an Israeli air raid in 1981] at Osirak? You know, a lot of people called it "Os-Chirac", as you know. In retrospect, do you regret that it was destroyed, given that it could have been used to form nuclear weapons?

CHIRAC: Well, this reactor was a civilian reactor. It was a civilian power plant and it was only going to produce energy. I don't think it could have been the link or the basis for nuclear technology or a military nuclear program. This being said, events such as we know them, it was destroyed, so the issue is no longer.

But in those days, all of the major democracies, all of them, each and every one of them, had contacts and trade and exchanges with Iraq, including on weapons. Even weapons of mass destruction sometimes, including bacteriological, biological weapons.

So we shouldn't come back to the past on these issues. But we shouldn't either pinpoint France or point the finger toward France, that had limited its actions to helping Iraq to produce the energy it needed to light the country.

AMANPOUR: Which countries are you specifically talking about?

CHIRAC: All the major democracies. Each and every one of them.
..."

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 14:31:46

Good interview dickbill, thanks for that. I wouldn't have known about it if it weren't for you. It really does show how the US, and well, the reactionists or sensationalists tends to deal with information.

I think that Saddam should take the latest news about Iraq as an opportunity to resign his position. Yes, yes, I know, Saddam has an ego, blah, blah, Josh is clearly showing his stupiditiy, etc, etc, but really... he may actually do it. ?Political martyrdom? can feed an ego just as well. I doubt very seriously Saddam truely thinks he can ?defeat? the US. He's just talking smack. If he wes to resign, saying something along the lines of ?All WMDs which Iraq possessed were destroyed, the evidence to show this was destroyed alnog with it, I have no other option now but to resign and request UN advice as to goverment restructuring as a show of faith to the international community, and especially the US, blah, blah.?

Of course, the point Bill makes is interesting, indeed. That it takes a dictator to keep all these opposing cultures in line, heh...

dickbill · 2003-03-17 22:54:16

I also liked what said Thomas Friedman. He's far to be pro-french, he called "de Villepin and his boss" (I guess Chirac) : "cynics". But he has a deep understanding of the middle orient. He would be a wise adviser for G Bush.
Anyway, now, alea jacta es. Good luck for everybody.

PaganToris · 2003-03-17 23:53:02

wjhat will happen if iraq fires a chemical nuke r way whats gonna happen? and whats the news on N korea?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-18 01:39:48

Iraq doesn't have nuclear capablity, and their bio/chemical weapons are highly depreciated and not really capable of anything, if they even have any functional weapons left at all.

It looks like the US is trying to go to war, but we'll have to see what happens in the next few days. These days it seems nothing is certain.

PaganToris · 2003-03-18 18:38:27

well what about N Korea! i live on the west coast in california and i am worried there gonna launcg a nuke here

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-18 19:26:10

N. Korea isn't really a threat. Even though the president is arguably insane, he's not suicidal, I don't think anyone with a nuclear bomb, at the momment, is (just wait until some terrorists get a hold of one, though).

He's just using his nuclear capablity to threaten the US a bit. He would never use it unless attacked. Which brings about some interesting speculation. I'd bet that if Bush got reelected, he'd go after N. Korea, just to prove Star Wars works.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-19 04:19:52

This probably belongs in the Bush thread equally as much as it belongs here, but that Bush thread is absurdly long.

Anyway, wow, I was reading Paul Krugman today and came across a very interesting quote.

[...] we need $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover our trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and our surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance ? and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/031803.html

I didn't even consider foreign investment impact on our trade deficit in all of this. Amazing.

PaganToris · 2003-03-19 16:22:37

ahhh yah well that puts some relief off me! becuse i live on the west coast of cali and it seems 15 iraqi solders ahve surrenderd to the us alrdy!

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-19 21:14:30

It's begun. I'm glued to the TV... This is simply lovely entertainment. I'm proud to be an American.

Bill White · 2003-03-19 21:19:17

Hey Josh, I am my office working late. No television.

You say the war started. When? 15 minutes ago?

Is it over? Have we won yet?

Are we there yet, Daddy?

soph · 2003-03-19 21:21:40

It's started, but it's nothing big. Night strikes will be the heavy action.

This isn't going to be a long war.

i saw the chirac interview when it aired on TV--on some points, I agreed, on some points, he was throwing on some serious BS.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 02:28:01

Sorry Bill, I probably should've stuck around and made some comments. My post wasn't very informative at all. I wasn't lying when I said it was entertaining, though. The bombing was being portrayed like a sport, and even a cynic like me must sit back and be somewhat at awe at these revalations.

Bush is going about this wrong, though. The US explicitly attempted to bomb Saddam individually. The whole point of those early morning bombings were because the CIA basically had information that Saddam would be in a building somewhere. Funny how the CIA tends to be involved in most major American fuckups, huh?

Many in the British government didn't even know the bombings were taking place, not a good idea since that tends to cause political distrust. Australia is pulling out troops, though still ?supports the US.?

France, Germany, Russia, and even China are calling this an illegal war. And if you read R1441 it's quite arguable that it is, since R1441 explicitly reaffirms Iraqs sovereignty. ?Severe consequences? was never a war mandate. We should've never taken it back to the UN, because now every second world country is going to be after the US over an illegal war. Or so it seems in these very early hours in the morning.

Palomar · 2003-03-20 07:15:03

Bush is going about this wrong, though. The US explicitly attempted to bomb Saddam individually. The whole point of those early morning bombings were because the CIA basically had information that Saddam would be in a building somewhere.

*Yes. My husband and I were watching television during this event; the media were calling it a "decapitation strike". According to them, it occured 40 minutes after Bush's television address to the nation, and -before- the "war started." ??? The reporters continued to say "when the war starts" and similar comments, even while anti-aircraft artillery was going off in Baghdad -and- while we were striking Iraq and moving in...I'm like, okay; so WHEN DOES the war "start." Ridiculous.

Okay, silly question: Is President Bush allowed to give orders to strike the buildings Maddas & Co were holed up in -before- war is declared "official"? ::shakes head::

You'd think the powers that be could do better spin than this.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 11:12:48

Yeah, Cindy, it's somewhat surreal, is this a new rule now, that nations can explicitly attack individuals in other nations? I recall reading a report right after that the reason it was done was to end the war quickly ?Saddam is dead and Iraq is now safe.? But you know, to be quite honest, I just want it done and over with as quick as humanly possible. I'm not rooting for anyone, I'm just rooting for a quick end, the only way I may regret such a position is if a lot of people die.

Hmm, since last night other world nations haven't really commented on the legality of war (China being the only country to really come forth after the inital bombings), but I would honestly say the US isn't and wasn't in any position to be not listening to the world.

I was reading something the other day that went basically along the lines of what Bill said, that there could be a clash of cultures once the region was destablized, and that the middle east could become a despot where civil wars and just general clashing occured constantly. I hope this doesn't occur, but the guy laid out some really convincing evidence.

Iraq seeingly launching missiles towards Israel (even though they landed in Kuwait, I personally beleive they were shooting for a bit further north) this morning is making things serious. Here's hoping Iraq doesn't really have WMDs (I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that, but we can't be totally sure).

Palomar · 2003-03-20 12:07:16

Josh: "Yeah, Cindy, it's somewhat surreal, is this a new rule now, that nations can explicitly attack individuals in other nations? I recall reading a report right after that the reason it was done was to end the war quickly ?Saddam is dead and Iraq is now safe.? But you know, to be quite honest, I just want it done and over with as quick as humanly possible. I'm not rooting for anyone, I'm just rooting for a quick end, the only way I may regret such a position is if a lot of people die."

*I can't believe the 21st century is opening this way. First 9/11, now this. Sorry to sound naive or whatever. This is not how I envisioned the beginnings of the 21st century.

Hmm, since last night other world nations haven't really commented on the legality of war (China being the only country to really come forth after the inital bombings), but I would honestly say the US isn't and wasn't in any position to be not listening to the world.

*President Putin of Russia has been yelling; he's declaring the war illegal and wants it stopped as soon as possible. Last week on Larry King Live a senator (can't recall his name, unfortunately) called on President Bush to listen to the people, particularly the anti-war protests. The senator went on to say more than once that Bush is -not- listening to his people.

I was reading something the other day that went basically along the lines of what Bill said, that there could be a clash of cultures once the region was destablized, and that the middle east could become a despot where civil wars and just general clashing occured constantly. I hope this doesn't occur, but the guy laid out some really convincing evidence.

*The Middle East is a mess. I'm glad I don't live there. My husband and I have recently made the acquaintance of a man named Cyrus, 53 years old, who immigrated to the U.S. from Iran 30 years ago; he has recently taken in and employed another man from Iran who immigrated here 6 months ago with his brother. Cyrus's entire family came to the U.S.A. He said living over there is incredibly hard; that it's nearly incomprehensible to most Westerners.

Iraq seeingly launching missiles towards Israel (even though they landed in Kuwait, I personally beleive they were shooting for a bit further north) this morning is making things serious. Here's hoping Iraq doesn't really have WMDs (I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that, but we can't be totally sure).

*Isn't Kuwait in the other direction from Israel? Kuwait is SE of Iraq. I'll check a map; so many things going on inside my overtaxed cranium today...

Edit: Yep, Kuwait is SE of Iraq. If the Iraqi strike in Kuwait earlier today was intended for Israel, they're pointing their weapons in the wrong direction.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 18:11:15

Yes, you're exactly right Cindy! What a pathetic blunder of mine! Especially since I'd been looking at many maps since my brother told me he was in Kuwait and should know the region pretty well!

I was watching TV earlier and I noticed this, and I explicitly came back here to correct my rather stupid statement! Sheesh. And here I am ocassionally making fun of people who don't know about the geography of the area.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-20 18:39:52

There seems to be contradictory information flying around already. Cindy mentioned a US senator accusing Bush of not listening to the people. But just yesterday, a Washington Post poll showed 71% of the American people now support the war. (The figure for Britain was quoted at 50%.)

I know there are "lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics", but my impression is that the Washington Post has a reputation for leaning a little more to the left than the right - is that actually so? At the very least, I thought it was regarded as one of the top newspapers in the country.

The legality or otherwise of the war in Iraq will be of no consequence when it's all over. Historically, whoever wins a war was right, whoever loses was wrong. America will win and any question of right or wrong will be moot.
That's how it's always been in history and that's probably how it always will be in all future wars.

So far, because of the British Empire and, now, the military ascendancy of the US, the English-speaking peoples of the world have been lucky. We haven't been on the losing end of a major war for centuries. (Putting aside small differences of opinion like the American war of independence and glossing over embarrassments like Vietnam, I mean!)
And, as I've said, if you always win, you're always right. Even if you're wrong, you're right - or, at least, you are never called to account for what you've done - unlike the losers.

It's a good and noble thing for protesters to decry the crimes of nations like America, Britain, or Australia (though Australia has less clout so we cop less bagging - the jealousy factor is less intense against us.)
But we mustn't forget how lucky we are. If some country like the former Soviet Union were the only superpower left standing, instead of America, there would be no question of consulting the UN about anything. There would be no question of airing your opinions or grievances in the streets either.

So far, the 'right' countries are, by and large, winning. However much you may love to hate them (and there are doubtless very valid reasons to do so), you really don't want to contemplate the alternative. It's still a very brutal world out there.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 19:05:17

Shaun, I don't think it's really that remarkable that there is a majority of support for the president about Iraq. Americans have always, historically, rallied behind the president in times of war.

I think Paul Krugman's remarks are actually more important than one would initally think. 400 billion is not a lot of money when you think about it. If the war is seen as illegal by the world community, it could have more consequence than you'd think. Instead of looking to the US as the economic and technological leader of the world, countries could well look to each other.

soph · 2003-03-20 19:10:35

Josh, technically, the war started after the 8 PM deadline. So, we were well within our boundaries.

The stuff you saw last night was a puff. Fighters and a few missiles. The action starts when we start seeing B-2s.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-16 21:26:52

Re: a war - a war

#2 2003-03-17 01:20:13

Re: a war - a war

#3 2003-03-17 07:25:38

Re: a war - a war

#4 2003-03-17 07:46:23

Re: a war - a war

#5 2003-03-17 09:31:06

Re: a war - a war

#6 2003-03-17 11:03:54

Re: a war - a war

#7 2003-03-17 14:31:46

Re: a war - a war

#8 2003-03-17 22:54:16

Re: a war - a war

#9 2003-03-17 23:53:02

Re: a war - a war

#10 2003-03-18 01:39:48

Re: a war - a war

#11 2003-03-18 18:38:27

Re: a war - a war

#12 2003-03-18 19:26:10

Re: a war - a war

#13 2003-03-19 04:19:52

Re: a war - a war

#14 2003-03-19 16:22:37

Re: a war - a war

#15 2003-03-19 21:14:30

Re: a war - a war

#16 2003-03-19 21:19:17

Re: a war - a war

#17 2003-03-19 21:21:40

Re: a war - a war

#18 2003-03-20 02:28:01

Re: a war - a war

#19 2003-03-20 07:15:03

Re: a war - a war

#20 2003-03-20 11:12:48

Re: a war - a war

#21 2003-03-20 12:07:16

Re: a war - a war

#22 2003-03-20 18:11:15

Re: a war - a war

#23 2003-03-20 18:39:52

Re: a war - a war

#24 2003-03-20 19:05:17

Re: a war - a war

#25 2003-03-20 19:10:35

Re: a war - a war

Board footer