Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Spider-Man · 2003-09-10 22:01:26

Um, no. I haven't the facts to contend the behaviour of our generals during the Revolutionary war, but I am aware that many a man turned on his neighbors depending on which crown they supported during that time.

But not Britons. That's fratricide at worst, shunning at best, not deliberately seeking to kill progeny in attempt to convert the Torries, or Patriots in other cases.

The birth of the revolution was a terroist act, it was to move beyond the restrictions of the governing law (my point).

I disagree in every way.

I would also like to point out that America did not set some example for the coming century.

You're right; America was actually two centuries ahead of its time.

Unless of course General Sherman and his oh so famous march to the sea can be called the actions of a saint.

Who said guerrilla warfare was saintly? It's as lowdown as it goes before terrorism; but it works.

heh, Rome fell because it stopped being a warmonger...

Ironic, no? Marcus Aurelius, like his adoptive father Hadrian, wanted to stop the wars in favor of culture and civilization. In reality, he helped Rome towards a decadence of what he loved, and the walls killed Rome just the same as they killed China.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-11 00:34:00

Marcus Aurelius, like his adoptive father Hadrian, wanted to stop the wars in favor of culture and civilization. In reality, he helped Rome towards a decadence of what he loved, and the walls killed Rome just the same as they killed China.

I think this is just one interpretation. I'm not a history buff, I've said as much myself, but I think that the reason Rome fell was that the army couldn't be supported economically. In fact, if I recall, Marcus had to do a lot of reforms to insure that the army was kept strong. Lowering taxes, etc. On top of that, Rome was hit with a plague, so I dunno.

I'm skeptical one guy or one concept was responsible for the ultimate fall of Rome. I suspect it was a combonation of things, from Rome finding it economically impossible to continue expanding, to plagues and invasions on all fronts (piss off enough people and this tends to happen).

Spider-Man · 2003-09-11 00:57:03

I concur with your sentiments, Josh.

clark · 2003-09-11 10:07:18

I disagree in every way.

And you are entitled to be wrong.

Christina · 2003-11-12 15:41:10

I'm skeptical one guy or one concept was responsible for the ultimate fall of Rome. I suspect it was a combonation of things, from Rome finding it economically impossible to continue expanding, to plagues and invasions on all fronts (piss off enough people and this tends to happen).

I don't think their reliance on slave labour helped much either, or the complacency of much of the upper classes....

Algol · 2004-02-24 13:43:19

or all that lead.....

they were exposed to so much in their wine and water systems they effectively sent the ruling classes insane, and as such could not effectively govern their empire.

dicktice · 2004-02-25 10:36:04

or all that lead.....
they were exposed to so much in their wine and water systems they effectively sent the ruling classes insane, and as such could not effectively govern their empire.

I wonder what equivalent insidious consumption item (like lead piping) caused other civilization extinctions--and for that matter, will cause ours to go under? I mean, besides not escaping from Earth on time, naturally.

SohoBoy · 2004-03-01 05:26:56

or all that lead.....
they were exposed to so much in their wine and water systems they effectively sent the ruling classes insane, and as such could not effectively govern their empire.
I wonder what equivalent insidious consumption item (like lead piping) caused other civilization extinctions--and for that matter, will cause ours to go under? I mean, besides not escaping from Earth on time, naturally.

hmm... [http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/]Aspartame? and maybe the long term synergystic effects of the low concentration 'soup' of several thousand artificial compounds, that people in industrialised countries are subject to every day of otheir lives.

A giant long term experiment which may already be producing results in the form on ever increasing cancer rates (relative to the poorer non-industrialised countries), and other maladies such as Attention Deficit Disorder.

Alternatively... Fox News and Ronald McDonald

Earthfirst · 2004-03-04 20:14:51

Boring Why not talk about homeosexual marrige and the role it will play in the election. Or about the military records of bush and kerry, or maybe about the Nader effect on the democrates. I think that thise election wont be close because Bush is more likable than Kerry.

DonPanic · 2004-03-16 02:32:20

LO

heh, Rome fell because it stopped being a warmonger...

Totally untrue, or as true as the argument that Irak War II would lower terrorist threat. Go tell that to Spanishes...
Rome felt because the principle "Cedant arma togae*" was no more respected.
Armies' chieves alternately came to Rome with troops to grab power instead of defending the Empire.
*Weapons must be submitted to civilian power

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-16 06:58:59

Hi Don Panic.
The Spanish were attacked because they are not a hard-line Muslim theocracy. That's all the qualification you need.
America and Australia (in Bali) were attacked before Iraq was invaded.
No organisation on Earth put more obstacles in the way of the invasion of Iraq than the U.N. However, the Iraqi headquarters of the U.N. in Baghdad was attacked in August 2003 and Mr Sergio Vieira de Mello, special representative of the U.N. Secretary General, and universally loved and respected, was killed.

Jemaah Islamiah, the extremist Muslim organisation affiliated to Al-Qu'aida, which orchestrated the attack which killed 88 Australian citizens in Bali, went on record as saying Australians were targeted not because of anything they had done, but because of what they were.
They were, and are, liberal democratic members of Western Civilisation and, as such, representatives of the highest order of civilisation yet attained on this planet. Not representatives of a perfect civilisation, you understand, but of the best yet. This is a civilisation which upholds in law the right of everyone to a say in how they are governed, which upholds equality of the sexes, which upholds the right of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and which outlaws slavery.

This is where the Spanish people went wrong. They too are civilised, tolerant freedom-loving people. Until they embrace a bigoted close-minded Islamic Theocracy, they (and we also) will be subject to the attacks of these primitive religious zealots. You don't have to do anything else to qualify!
In fact, the poor Spanish people did do one other thing to bring the mindless cruelty of Al-Qa'ida down upon themselves. Osama Bin Laden went on record as saying he could never forget "the tragedy of Andalusia". You might be forgiven for not understanding this added excuse for butchery, since it dates back many centuries to the expulsion of the Islamic Moors from the Iberian Peninsula by Christians! This is how limitless the insane hatred and revenge of Bin Laden really is, and it's impossible to understand the ignorance of the thousands of followers who actually place credence in his particular brand of religious bigotry.

So please, Don Panic, don't try to perpetuate the myth of Western guilt by blaming the victims in this tragedy. The criminals are the Islamic extremists and their hatred had no need of the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to practise their brand of barbarism; it's inculcated into them in schools run by their hate-filled teachers.

Personally, I don't care how far up the Islamic fundamentalist vengeance list my country is raised - the higher the better in my view - because the more they hate me, the better the job of irritating them I must be doing! Any Western man or woman who bleats that they've been made more of a target for Islamic extremist barbarians, by standing up for what's right, is a craven coward who doesn't deserve the freedom s/he enjoys.

I don't believe in appeasement. Winston Churchill once said that "an appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile in the hope it will eat him last".
There's nowhere to hide in this war against terror, Don Panic, so let's not pretend there is. The enemy is without reason and without mercy and cares not a jot whether you are left wing, right wing, libertarian, feminist, fascist or republican ... they will kill you just the same, because you aren't an extremist Muslim!.
Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Comprenez-vous, mon ami?
???

Bill White · 2004-03-16 07:10:38

Shaun, I agree with your assessment of how evil and vile these terrorists are, however, I believe you underestimate how clever they are.

Attacks are not planned randomly just because some people are Western or freedom-loving. Rather attacks are planned to influence how we Westerners will react.

Psychological operations, or psy-ops. I believe Saddam regime change was the primary goal behind bin Ladens attack on the WTC on 9/11. Bush had been seeking an excuse to whack Saddam before 9/11 and bin Laden gavehim the excuse.

Now France, Germany (and today Spain) point fingers at the US - - and vice versa with freedom fries - - and bin Laden has accomplished, what?

Divided Western Civilization into two warring factions. And what does Bush do? Insults the French with harsh words.

I blame Bush more than Chirac because Bush refuses to accept that there might be legitmate differences on the correct strategy for winning the War on Terror. The French have fought wars on terror before, we Yanks have not, yet think we know best.

Palomar · 2004-03-16 07:46:27

*I agree with Shaun's post.

As for Bill's post: I think some of the problem has to do with stereotyping. Based on what I read and hear, the U.S. policies are looked upon as "Cowboy" by some/most (?) Europeans; meanwhile, some/most (?) Americans (at least on the Yahoo! message boards...whew! stay out of there unless you have a very strong stomach!) look upon Europeans as "Euro-Wimps" who allowed Hitler to overrun and subjugate them with little to no resistance. The thinking apparently is if they'd allow something like that to happen once they might allow it to happen again. I don't feel that way about it myself, just so everyone knows; I'm simply relating what I see.

But yeah, the West surely is divided. The attack on Spain was surely calculated to drive the wedge further, in my opinion.

I'm not sure Chirac is more correct than Bush, because I'm not greatly familiar with Mr. Chirac's attitudes and policies. Maybe he's just as ineffective as Bush in the opposite direction? I don't know, I'm simply speculating.

It's such a pity that the only planet we know of which harbors and sustains LIFE is subject to all this horrible carnage and death. Most of it utterly senseless. But matters have to be dealt with, don't they? Despite the hand-wringing.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-03-16 07:55:43

This is where the Spanish people went wrong.

who knows who is wrong or right. The spanish population in its majority was against the war and against its own government position. that's a fact. Maybe the attentat was just a drop on the top.
Maybe the spanish people thought that their governemnt made too much to liberate other country while interior terrorism (ETA) was left unadressed and they say "now, that's enough"

Anyway, redraw from Irak now or later, what was the option ?
I think Bush plans to redraw part of his troops next summer right ? so why the spanish could not redraw in july too ?

Bill White · 2004-03-16 09:14:53

The enemy is without reason and without mercy and cares not a jot whether you are left wing, right wing, libertarian, feminist, fascist or republican

I agree with all of this except the "without reason" and our thinking they are mindless plays into their hands.

The killing is NOT random from their perspective (although it seems random to us) - - each attack is part of a calculated, crafted plan of psychological operations.

Our emotions are the strings bin Laden seeks to play.

= = =

Every Iraqi wedding we shoot up by mistake breeds more terrorists. I see BOTH side on this.

I assign ZERO blame to the young soldiers, fearful for their own lives, who open fire in response to the sounds of AK-47 fire to celebrate a wedding. Yet we ignore the reality that the accidental killing of a bridal party WILL create ripe fodder for future recruitment by bin Laden types.

Guns alone cannot defeat terrorism. The Brits learned this in Ulster and the French in Algeria.

Ironically, al Qaeda may end up helping Spain solve its Basque Eta problem as the Basque people reject the path of Eta out of disgust for what happened on March 11th.

= = =

We also need more US ground troops. Generals were fired by Rusmfeld for saying we need two more divisions of US infantry or that hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed to pacify Iraq and win the war on terror.

I believe we need two more divisions of infantry. Iraq has left us overextended and exposed. I believe we need to spend billions and billions of dollars - - maybe a trillion dollars over the next decade - - to win the war on terror. Yet Bush wont tell us this, he says we can defeat the terrorists AND have huge tax cuts all at the same time.

Guns and butter was disastrous for LBJ and I fear will prove disastrous again.

Suppose we decide we need to invade Iran today, or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? With what? Which divisions? We are short on men in boots. Not to mention Korea. ???

Until Iraq is pacified, we cannot extend the War on Terror because we lack the soldiers to invade any other country, even if, like Pakistan, they SELL nuclear technology not merely lust for it as did Saddam..

The special forces now in Pakistan / Afghanistan were not available last spring to hunt bin Laden because they were in Iraq. During that year of respite, bin Laden apparently rebuilt his global terror cells

And saying this is being weak on terror?

= = =

Concerning Bush, my belief is that he wants to be the PromiseKeeper President. PromiseKeepers are a new social fad in America based on the premise that God intends the husband to be the natural leader of every family and that faithful, holy wives SUBMIT to their husband's will.

Allegedly, the decay in the American family and family values can be traced to women not following appropriately submisive roles.

google PromiseKeepers for more information. One PromiseKeeper's quote:

. . . sit down with your wife and say something like this, "Honey, I've made a terrible mistake. . . I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role."
. . . I'm not suggesting you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back . . . there can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead . . . Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!

Likewise, America must lead, right? ???

In my opinion George W. BUsh adopted this same tone and posture with the United Nations and Europe . GWB believes America is the rightful leader of the world and Chirac and others are EVIL for not playing the dutifully submissive little lady.

France (via Chirac) and now Spain with the recent election are like the feisty lib-minded wife who says " F&% You!! " George!

Telling Serbia that they MUST turn over alleged Serbian war criminals to the Hague and they MUST sign a treaty to NEVER turn over Americans to the Hague reflects this mentality.

= = =

Here is a blog entry written by someone who says he is a Spaniard.

[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/15/19179/9758]http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/15/19179/9758

The election was NOT appeasement, he says, but a backlash against a government willing to lie and exploit terrorist events for their own political gain. The comments show the same debate we are having here, Shaun and I for example. :;):

dicktice · 2004-03-16 09:25:56

Bill wrote: The special forces now in Pakistan / Afghanistan were not available last spring to hunt bin Laden because they were in Iraq. During that year of respite, bin Laden apparently rebuilt his global terror cells.
--And who's fault was that, Bill?

Bill White · 2004-03-16 09:32:45

Bill wrote: The special forces now in Pakistan / Afghanistan were not available last spring to hunt bin Laden because they were in Iraq. During that year of respite, bin Laden apparently rebuilt his global terror cells.
--And who's fault was that, Bill?

Hopefully we can go forward and capture bin Laden this spring.

Despite the press whining about Spain's appeasement, the Bush administration been quite low key about it, praising the contribution of the Spanish troops. Maybe they are learning, finally.

Iraq was a mistake, IMHO, but whats done is done and we cannot withdraw. Hopefully Bush will tone down his "America leads the world" posture and accept a more equal partnership with Europe and together we can rebuild Iraq.

Because we have no choice, now.

Palomar · 2004-03-16 10:08:03

= = =
Concerning Bush, my belief is that he wants to be the PromiseKeeper President. PromiseKeepers are a new social fad in America based on the premise that God intends the husband to be the natural leader of every family and that faithful, holy wives SUBMIT to their husband's will.
Allegedly, the decay in the American family and family values can be traced to women not following appropriately submisive roles.
google PromiseKeepers for more information. One PromiseKeeper's quote:
. . . sit down with your wife and say something like this, "Honey, I've made a terrible mistake. . . I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role."
. . . I'm not suggesting you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back . . . there can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead . . . Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!
Likewise, America must lead, right? ???
In my opinion George W. BUsh adopted this same tone and posture with the United Nations and Europe . GWB believes America is the rightful leader of the world and Chirac and others are EVIL for not playing the dutifully submissive little lady.
France (via Chirac) and now Spain with the recent election are like the feisty lib-minded wife who says " F&% You!! " George!
Telling Serbia that they MUST turn over alleged Serbian war criminals to the Hague and they MUST sign a treaty to NEVER turn over Americans to the Hague reflects this mentality.

*Wow Bill...I think you're definitely onto something here.

I've always felt Bush and his pals are condescending and etc.

I don't want to steer off-topic, but are the "PromiseKeepers" still going strong? They aren't around here (don't need to, I guess; macho attitudes abound). I recall them as a phenomenon in the late 1990's; I thought they'd phased out.

My ex-brother-in-law is proof of the absurd sexist notion that ALL men are naturally "leaders": Thanks to him and his idiotic schemes and reckless, inept handling of money, my sister and their child lived on the fringes of knuckle-scraping poverty for years. Of course, he preened and strutted around as being "head of the household" because of their church teachings.

Leadership qualities can come in both genders.

Besides, in my opinion true and mature marriages embrace and work with the -partnership- ideal, i.e. that two reasonable and mature people can arrive at decisions together, can both "give and take" as situations and needs arise, etc. Teamwork, in other words.

Oh well, enough of this.

Anyway, I think you are absolutely right about this attitude of Bush's: I know best/condescending/my way or the highway, etc.

John Kerry for President!

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-16 11:16:38

We also need more US ground troops. Generals were fired by Rusmfeld for saying we need two more divisions of US infantry or that hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed to pacify Iraq and win the war on terror.

So you believe that the US military needs more resources to provide the capability to fight and occupy a larger swath of the world, all to keep us safe at home?

The road to Empire begins with the first step... ???

Bill White · 2004-03-16 11:33:17

We also need more US ground troops. Generals were fired by Rusmfeld for saying we need two more divisions of US infantry or that hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed to pacify Iraq and win the war on terror.
So you believe that the US military needs more resources to provide the capability to fight and occupy a larger swath of the world, all to keep us safe at home?
The road to Empire begins with the first step... ???

If we are to continue the course charted by George W. Bush, well, I answer YES. But not merely more warfighter "boots on the ground" - - more nation builder boots on the ground.

We need more soldiers like Victor Joppollo - the main character in John Hersey's 1940s Pulitzer prize winning novel, A Bell for Adano. (link to follow)

dickbill · 2004-03-16 11:49:22

I believe we need two more divisions of infantry. Iraq has left us overextended and exposed. I believe we need to spend billions and billions of dollars - - maybe a trillion dollars over the next decade - -

Ouch ! I agree with most what you say Bill, but trillions of dollars certainly not. Keep your money and find other strategies.

Well, maybe out of topic maybe not : in the last number of Scientific American, a US-NASA renomed scientist (I precise that for the republican supporters here who still believe that there is NO global warming, Cf. Dubya who told you so) wrote an article that describe the global warming threat as a TIME BOMB, nothing less.

Here is one scenario : If nothing is done, the Iraqi region will become so dry and desertic that massive human migration will take place, leaving only a minority of people in place. In 20 years, Iraq is an empty place. You don't invest trillions of dollars in an empty place.
To absorb such an enormous amount of money, it takes an industrial infrastructure, and the will of people THERE (not the will of halliburton) to build something. I think Iraqis people have will to build, but to give them so much money is irrealistic. If I had to invest in Iraq, I would invest massively in the basic, education, agriculture and in the forecoming ecological effects of the global warming in that region like massive irrigation and water reserves, and greening the region.

Bill White · 2004-03-16 11:59:47

I believe we need two more divisions of infantry. Iraq has left us overextended and exposed. I believe we need to spend billions and billions of dollars - - maybe a trillion dollars over the next decade - -
Ouch ! I agree with most what you say Bill, but trillions of dollars certainly not. Keep your money and find other strategies.
Well, maybe out of topic maybe not : in the last number of Scientific American, a US-NASA renomed scientist (I precise that for the republican supporters here who still believe that there is NO global warming, Cf. Dubya who told you so) wrote an article that describe the global warming threat as a TIME BOMB, nothing less.
Here is one scenario : If nothing is done, the Iraqi region will become so dry and desertic that massive human migration will take place, leaving only a minority of people in place. In 20 years, Iraq is an empty place. You don't invest trillions of dollars in an empty place.
To absorb such an enormous amount of money, it takes an industrial infrastructure, and the will of people THERE (not the will of halliburton) to build something. I think Iraqis people have will to build, but to give them so much money is irrealistic. If I had to invest in Iraq, I would invest massively in the basic, education, agriculture and in the forecoming ecological effects of the global warming in that region like massive irrigation and water reserves, and greening the region.

Not just Iraq. :;):

Pakistan as well and counter-intuitively (in part) Saudi Arabia! Saudi Arabia is in crisis because there are too many do nothing relatives of the royal family who expect state welfare.

Right now, Islamic extremists offer free education to millions and millions of poor children who would otherwise never go to school or learn to read and write. Teachers are radical Islamic volunteers. If we close those schools by force and replace them with nothing, the backlash will be tremendous. If we close those schools and open secular schools we will need to pay the teachers.

Unless we provide universal public education throughout the Muslim world, we cannot drain the swamp of terrorism. Its through these religious schools - - which offer poor children the ONLY opportunity to learn reading and writing - - that al Qaeda recruits.

And that will be expensive to accomplish.

clark · 2004-03-16 12:29:53

Here is the fundamental problem with following this course though Bill, we push our military to the breaking point of what it is capable of, then we have a rationale to expand the size and scope of the military to increase their capability, and move back from this breaking point. Now, with the new increased capability, leaders and US military once again use their abilities until we reach yet another breaking point, thus providing the same rationale, later, to increase the size and scope of the military... etc.

There is a common held belief that the reason America wages some type of war every ten years is that the military interests need this warfare to utilize their resources. We all know what happens to unused or unutilized resources- they get cut the next budgetary cycle. I'm not saying this is true, or that it is even partially true, but I find merit in the concept itself. It makes sense on some level, no?

How long do we keep shoveling into the maw of the beast we have created? In a war without end (by declaration of our leaders)?

Perhaps expanding our military isn't in our best interest for the sole reason that a limited military allows us, as in the people, to keep our Empire Leaders in check. Let their ego's be capable of taking on the world, but do we want them to have the capabilities to match their rhetoric?

Of course, being the sole superpower, I can see a definite need to expand our military power. We need to be number one, right? So let's be uber-number one....

I'm not sure on the whole global warming thing, but if it does happen, there ain't much we humans can do. It's like an earthquake- all that is left to us is to prepare for the worst, and pick up the pieces afterward. [shrug]

No ammount of irrigation in one place will change a global shift in climate, and it will probably not be in anyone interest to try and stop Iraq or other areas from becoming Sahraha-like deserts. It's like spitting into the wind.

Bill White · 2004-03-16 13:15:06

I have great sympathy for clark's last post. My worry is that GWB's various "visions" are writing checks that America cannot cash. (Like plans to go to the Moon and Mars riding EELVs)

30,000 French and German troops in Iraq would help solve the problem, perhaps better than raising a new division.

Wesley Clark advocated a transfer of supreme command in Iraq to NATO, rather than the United States. If French and German officers were co-equal on the top staff level, then getting those troop commitments would be far more likely.

We broke Iraq and we MUST stay until it is fixed. To do it all by ourselves without a larger regular army over-taxes our reserve and Guard (One weekend a month? - My ass!) and leaves us exposed elsewhere in the world.

dickbill · 2004-03-16 13:24:32

Wesley Clark advocated a transfer of supreme command in Iraq to NATO,

Why not UN ? it's a UN job no ?
The UN prestige is reinforced after the Iraq war. UN have a momentum, they could use it. But UN need somebody more punchy than Annan. Hans Blix maybe ? or an old USSR official : Gorbatchov. I would think also about Jimmy Carter.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2003-09-10 22:01:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#127 2003-09-11 00:34:00

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#128 2003-09-11 00:57:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#129 2003-09-11 10:07:18

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#130 2003-11-12 15:41:10

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#131 2004-02-24 13:43:19

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#132 2004-02-25 10:36:04

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#133 2004-03-01 05:26:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#134 2004-03-04 20:14:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#135 2004-03-16 02:32:20

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#136 2004-03-16 06:58:59

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#137 2004-03-16 07:10:38

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#138 2004-03-16 07:46:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#139 2004-03-16 07:55:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#140 2004-03-16 09:14:53

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#141 2004-03-16 09:25:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#142 2004-03-16 09:32:45

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#143 2004-03-16 10:08:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#144 2004-03-16 11:16:38

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#145 2004-03-16 11:33:17

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#146 2004-03-16 11:49:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#147 2004-03-16 11:59:47

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#148 2004-03-16 12:29:53

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#149 2004-03-16 13:15:06

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#150 2004-03-16 13:24:32

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer