Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

clark · 2004-03-16 13:29:24

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.

I agree that we need to stay the course, to make some good of all of this. No matter what side you're on, I think most will agree to this common sense approach.

Now, raising two divisions gives us what? The ability to cope with occupying foreign countries and engaging in the defense of our way of life in a manner of our own choosing. We have a lot of global commitments becuase we happen to be a global power. Okay, I understand all of this.

Right now, we have to utilize National Guard units to cope with the current needs of the military. Weekend Warriors who are not really military-career soldiers. They're full US soldiers, but they have a life outside of the military. So let's 'fix' this by designing our military to use less weekend soldiers, and more regular soldiers. We can do this by creating two new divisions.

What happens then? Well, National Guard units stop going to fight the War on Terror. They stop being deployed in large numbers. They can stay at home and work, thankful that they don't have to use their skills (no one really, sane that is, wants to go off to war). That makes them happy. That makes their families happy. You regular army folk, well, they complain, but they 'chose' this life. That's their job, no use complaining now.

What we are doing is undermining our best interest. How? Without a draft, without utilization of private citizens, in some capacity, use of the military to wage war becomes less central to a greater percentage of people. Why did people react to Vietnam so badly? The body bags were from a large cross section of society, and in some cases, from largely under-represented segments (already there is an argument along the same lines based on socio-economic status).

Everyone who was over 18, and male, had to chose to enlist, gamble, go to college and sit it out, or flee to Canada. With a private army, there is less reason for people to feel personaly threatened, or interested, in what is done with it.

I can see the immediate sense to expanding the size of the military, but it's the 'over the horzions' issues that most concern me.

Bill White · 2004-03-16 13:54:06

I can see the immediate sense to expanding the size of the military, but it's the 'over the horzions' issues that most concern me.

Well, its a non-starter, since Rumsfeld is against it and Kerry won't do it. Its more to point out that Bush refuses to match necessary means with announced ends.

Or like McCain said, "Vision without strategy is illusion"

clark · 2004-03-16 14:06:36

Ergo, the Space Policy must be empty rhetoric...

A larger military means a less updated military, which runs counter to the primary strategy of force dominance via deployment advanced weapons systems. We can raise two divisions, or we can enter the techno-military of the 22nd century, today. We can't do both (unless we give up some tax cuts and social benefits).

Perhaps there is a solution there... out of work? Uncle Sam needs you. Get helath and pension, just join the Army!

We don't need another two divisions because we don't need to go and invade any new countries. The ones we might, well, we can't really invade them (say China for example) anyway, so it's a moot point.

If you control an argument by suggesting what the option are, you've won because then the argument becomes one over the options. in reality, the argument should be over the situation.

A larger military allows our leaders to do more. I do not want them doing anymore. We have enough on our plate for the next ten years. Small military means we have pressure to get in and out quickly (which means less chances of Empire). A smaller military means we have to work with our allies, not give them the big middle finger (allows for consensus due to limitations... good ol check and balances). A Small military means we are perceived to be less of a threat, so it makes the insecure (hello, N.Korea) feel like they can talk to us, instead of threaten us. A smaller military constrains a US President in times of conflict, a neccessity given that Congress gave away it's rights to declare war (more or less, not the point of the discussion) and the Supreme COurt refuses to weigh in (more or less, again). It's a good ol fashion check on something that looks to be broken.

Bill White · 2004-03-16 14:16:26

Ergo, the Space Policy must be empty rhetoric...

I may be wrong, but yup, that my analysis.

Or to be more accurate, Bush envisions rare missions to moon and Mars by small handfuls of military veterans assigned to NASA to "explore" and bring back samples with little intention to stay. No need for heavy lift because not many folks will ever be going.

Is it a tin shack or cedar shingled with electric lights?

The ability to safely bear children "out there" is the tipping point betwen visions, IMHO.

clark · 2004-03-16 14:25:58

Bush envisions rare missions to moon and Mars by small handfuls of military veterans assigned to NASA to "explore" and bring back samples with little intention to stay. No need for heavy lift because not many folks will ever be going.

Then you my friend, are in for a very difficult argument. Space advocates have a strong hand when discussing the exploration of space by man. The game though deals a lousy two pair when it comes to arguing for colonization.

NASA isn't in the business of colonizing the stars, as much as we may want that, if we want that. Not many people will be going, period. We need ONE person to declare victory. Not one child born there- that's a very different challenge.

Simply put, for all alive at this very moment, not in our lifetime. Not another generation, but four. Even the Mars Society goes on meekly about this long awaited dream- the central plan is to put a handful of people on Mars- not a colony.

Besides, we should all encourage the 'tin shack' patio for the Moon- it will make it tha much easier to move on to Mars (tyson made a similar comment about NASA and their love for infrastructure). Then, when the time comes, our great great great grandchildren can fight over how those old Martian tin shacks should be, or could be, converted for colonization (of course the first Settlement will be named Clarksville, in honor of me, and every year, they will have a festival where they throw a life-like replica of me out the airlock... good fun all around!)

DonPanic · 2004-03-16 15:04:27

LO Shaun
I'm aware that we are all targets for terrorists, as islamic fundamentalists based here in Paris suburbs have sent today a message to french government threatening with heavy terrorist action if the veil law wasn't to be removed.

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

France + Germany, have 8.5 millions jobless people... among them more than a quarter million possible soldiers. One more bloody terrorist attack in Europe, and lots could raise, but more than 85% won't lift a finger as long as Bush and Rumsfeld bunch are in command. WMD lie destroyed any kind of trust. So, want some help ? You know how to vote...
But basically, the only way to fight terrorism is to bring welfare state, hopeful people don't blast themselves.
With Bush's weapon programs, there in no room for that point of view.

Bill White · 2004-03-16 19:17:12

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.

Bill Clinton? The Europeans love him.

dickbill · 2004-03-16 19:42:11

But UN need somebody more punchy than Annan. Hans Blix maybe ? or an old USSR official : Gorbatchov. I would think also about Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton? The Europeans love him.

yes, he would certainly have the quality and experiences. But maybe he is too young and J. Carter got a Noble price.
But yes, I think Clinton would be better than Annan.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-16 19:54:06

Thanks everyone for the interesting responses to my impassioned post against 'the barbarians at the gates'!
I confess to getting a little hot under the collar when it comes to Al-Qa'ida, which I want to see crushed out of existence as soon as possible. Of course, every one of you good people wants exactly the same thing; the only disagreement is over how best to go about it.

I just wish we could all put aside our relatively petty political differences and face this very real threat as a united front. I'm very concerned that rivalries between Europe and America (an oversimplification, I agree), and between the right and the left, will hamper a response which needs to be strategically well-planned and operationally cohesive.
We can go on for centuries arguing the finer points of capitalism and socialism etc., extending or reducing the scope and magnitude of the welfare state, pointing the finger accusingly at whichever country has the biggest military at the time, until we get the ideal mix of power, incentive and compassion in the world. But, for now, there are forces out there which seek to deprive us of the luxury of that sort of debate, and impose upon us a religious totalitarian state instead.
I think we need to get our priorities right, that's all.
???

In specific response to Bill's comments, when I describe Al-Qa'ida as being 'without reason', I don't mean their actions are random and unplanned. I do realise how cunning they are. What I really mean is that their agenda is not open to negotiation because it's founded on a religious premise; you can't argue with the will of God.
If someone is out to convert you to his/her sect and will use every means available, up to and including killing you if need be, and if s/he is doing this because s/he believes it's the will of God, sitting down with that person over a cup of coffee and saying: "Now, now, let's just talk this over and see if we can reach a compromise", isn't going to work!

Bill White · 2004-03-16 20:19:03

In specific response to Bill's comments, when I describe Al-Qa'ida as being 'without reason', I don't mean their actions are random and unplanned. I do realise how cunning they are. What I really mean is that their agenda is not open to negotiation because it's founded on a religious premise; you can't argue with the will of God.

This I can agree with 100% There is NO negotiation possible with al Qaeda. There can be no compromise.

Victory, however, requires that we drain the swamp of potential child age recruits, that we close the Islamicist schools (madrassas). However, since schooling (reading and writing and job skills) are the only road to the future, we must replace the schools we close.

= = =

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … nal_poll_1]Disturbing article.

clark · 2004-03-17 10:18:30

We can go on for centuries arguing the finer points of capitalism and socialism etc., extending or reducing the scope and magnitude of the welfare state, pointing the finger accusingly at whichever country has the biggest military at the time, until we get the ideal mix of power, incentive and compassion in the world. But, for now, there are forces out there which seek to deprive us of the luxury of that sort of debate, and impose upon us a religious totalitarian state instead.

If someone is out to convert you to his/her sect and will use every means available, up to and including killing you if need be, and if s/he is doing this because s/he believes it's the will of God, sitting down with that person over a cup of coffee and saying: "Now, now, let's just talk this over and see if we can reach a compromise", isn't going to work!

This I can agree with 100% There is NO negotiation possible with al Qaeda. There can be no compromise.

In order to secure our freedom, we must deny theirs? There is no reasoning with them, so we must fight them. Hmmm, haven't they been saying the same thing about us?

When an animal attacks, you kill it. Why? Because there is no reasoning with an animal. Are we fighting animals then? What do they want?

Us out of their lands. Not sure how you have it down in Australia, but out this way, there are quite a few rabid red-white-and-blue blooded Americans who would react just as rabidly and violently as any muslim Imam if some Arabs were sitting in their tanks on our street corner. Or, if Arabs were supporting the US military to repress civil rights and maintain stability to secure the free flow of our natural resources.

Western civilizations prosperity is bought at the exspense of many others around the world, and not all are quite satisfied with their lot in life, or the way of the world. I'm all for education, but the problem is that with education comes a desire for opportunity to realize your new found potential. That's why Phd's seldom work in the fast food industry flipping burgers- if they do, they are seldom, if ever, happy.

Educating all of these people, with no opportunity to greet them, is a recipe for disaster. Just look at some of our urban cities here in the US- look at the Palestinan's- many are educated (like the 9/11 terrorists). They have potential, but no opportunity, which usually leads to depression and/or violence.

But whatever, kill em before they kill us, right? Right. Put darky back in his place.

Bill White · 2004-03-17 10:31:37

As often happens, clark seizes the opposite side of whatever coin in on the table, and as often happens, is correct. :;):

We can and must negotiate with moderate Muslims to help them build a society that does not breed the bin Ladens of the world. Yet we cannot merely withdraw as the destruction of Israel and hatred of the West is the distraction that Muslim leaders offer their own people to excuse and deflect internal criticism of those leaders.

And yes, the most dangerous terrorists are the upper middle class and upper class educated Muslims, like bin Laden, who comes from a well respected family, and many of bin Ladens kin are close friends and associates of the Bush family, something not widely publicized.

clark · 2004-03-17 11:45:08

Yet we cannot merely withdraw as the destruction of Israel and hatred of the West is the distraction that Muslim leaders offer their own people to excuse and deflect internal criticism of those leaders.

You know, some make it a point of contention that ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, our leaders and pundits have been searching for the new Boogie Monster to distract and deflect interal criticism of their policies and actions...

Some say Iraq is a sideshow, to distract us all, or to keep our attention focused some where else.

"Look over there! The Other is infiltrating our society, undermining it from within! The Fifth column is already within the gates!"

"Look over there! The seeds of terror, planted by us, have sprouted with violence and terror! We may have caused this, but we didn't ask for this! Quick, man the bellows, arm the guards, defend our peace, for there can be no middle ground...now!"

"Look over there! Bad guys with bad weapons wait and conspire for a future date to threaten our very exsistence! They want nothing more than to take away your freedoms! There is no reasoning with them! they are not like us, decent and hard working! No, they don't care about their children or their wives!"

Is enlightenment only found at the end of a gun?

And as for the coin... in order to understand, we must strive to see from the opposite perspective. That dosen't mean you accept it, but that you try to see the motivations that drive others actions. If you believe in the intellect of the human mind, then you must believe that all people possess it, to some degree. Just my way of keeping an open mind.

It's also the only way us moderates can make sense of the loud left wingers and right wingers- they are the ones that try to sway us.

Bill White · 2004-03-17 12:08:31

Support for clark's view, from the NY Times:

Islamists of the kind represented by Al Qaeda are religious revolutionaries. But it is perfectly possible for a practicing Muslim to be against United States intervention, free-market capitalism, sexual freedom and the importing of Hollywood movies without being a theocratic revolutionary. Such a person may be a moderate reformer who believes, as did many Europeans until just a few decades ago, that democratic politics is best organized along religious lines.
The real question for the Western universalists, then, is whether the cause of moderate Muslims is helped by the revolutionary war that has been set off by the American and British armies. For that is what the war in Iraq is: not a clash of civilizations, but a revolution unleashed through outside force.

Can we impose moderation with JDAMs? If not, then we just might be going about this War on Terror thing all wrong.

And since terrorists just now destroyed a hotel in Bahgdad with a car bomb and angry crowds jeered US soldiers trying to help this is an extremely important question as well.

In the face of what is seen as continued Western aggression, it is harder for Muslims in any country to take a strong stand against fellow Muslims for fear of being branded as traitors. The Liberal Islamic Network, for example, has done a brave job of promoting a moderate form of Islam in Indonesia, where extremists bombed a Bali nightclub in 2002. These liberal Muslims advocate the separation of church and state, and a non-literal interpretation of the Koran. They were able to fight extremism without being seen as American stooges ? until American troops invaded a Muslim country.

Palomar · 2004-03-17 20:17:22

*Here's some more headlines:

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … nal_poll_8]U.S. faces suspicion

Madeleine Albright (news - web sites), secretary of state in the Clinton administration, called the findings "depressing."

Appearing on NBC's "Today" show Wednesday, she said she was especially surprised to see that support for the war in Iraq has declined even in Britain, which has been the staunchest ally of the United States there.

She also lamented divisions between the United States and Europe, particularly in the wake of the terrorist attacks against the Spanish train stations, which killed some 200 people and injured hundreds others.

"In order to deal with the longterm issues in the Muslim world," Albright said, "we have to have unity between us and the European world and what has happened is that the Muslims have been able to do something that the communists were not able to do ... which is to divide us."

*But then again, the Communists didn't go around doing suicide bombings...

~~~

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … al_qaida_3]Spanish truce?

I've just about had enough of politics for one week, but these two headlines caught my attention.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-03-18 09:22:44

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … al_qaida_3]Spanish truce?
I've just about had enough of politics for one week, but these two headlines caught my attention.
--Cindy

That' terrible but very predictible.
Here is the result of the spinning of the spanish redraw by the right wingers: It gives too much credit to Al Quaeda.
Guys with no link to Al Quada claim responsability and congratulates the spanish government and assure them that they won't get any more bombing if they continue their anti-US stance. Right wingers have transform a terrorist attack into a political victory for AlQuaeda.

OK, back to the spanish decision :
In military terms it doesn't matter. Bush make a forcing to impose an Iraqi constitution to be able to redraw tens of thousands of troops by the end of this year (and having a chance to win the election), so the spanish redrawing 1300 soldiers 3 months (scheduled in July) before the US redraw 10 times more ?

In political terms, that's the big deal for Bush because it is a strong desaproval of his policy and it could have a domino effect.
But if Aznar had been reelected and had he decided to redraw his troops for any reason in July, while continuing to support the US politically, no spinning would have happened.

All Bush wants finally, is moral and political support, I don't think he cares much about troops at this point.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 12:35:36

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … al_qaida_3]Spanish truce?
I've just about had enough of politics for one week, but these two headlines caught my attention.
--Cindy
That' terrible but very predictible.
Here is the result of the spinning of the spanish redraw by the right wingers: It gives too much credit to Al Quaeda.
Guys with no link to Al Quada claim responsability and congratulates the spanish government and assure them that they won't get any more bombing if they continue their anti-US stance. Right wingers have transform a terrorist attack into a political victory for AlQuaeda.

Political victory for al Qaeda in Spain equals powerful political ammunition for Republicans in America.

Its ALL so depressingly predictable. . .

= = =

Italy is next, I predict. Before Britain, probably.

DonPanic · 2004-03-19 19:39:05

LO

Political victory for al Qaeda in Spain equals powerful political ammunition for Republicans in America.

Depends on the way people will see it. Might be wet ammunitions.
When Polish President and Italian Prime say that they sent troops because WMDs lie, that's not real good for Bush.
Some point of History :
As US ambassador in Paris was conferring with De Gaulle about Cuba missiles crisis, he wanted to show air survey photographies of missiles, as evidences of the threat,
said president De Gaulle : "c'est inutile, la parole du Président des Etats-Unis me suffit"*
*"Its useless, words of the Predident of United States are enough"
All american citizens should be aware of the difference in the behaviour of a french president with a respected US President and G.W. Bush.

dickbill · 2004-03-26 10:03:40

"We know that there are unknow known but we don't know how unknown exactly they are"
Donald Rumsfeld, or something like that.

But now, we know :

[http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2004_01_04_5421.php]http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2004_01_04_5421.php

Palomar · 2004-04-09 13:03:27

*The other thread ("What if...Vietnam II?") is breaking down, I guess.

Repost:

This horrible situation has been in mind since I read the article a few hours ago.

What should the Japanese authorites do?

A total understatement to say I feel sorry for the kidnap victims; I am extremely worried for them.

I can't comprehend such cruelty.

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … nappings_1]Japan/Iraq Abduction Crisis

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-04-09 13:23:02

*The other thread ("What if...Vietnam II?") is breaking down, I guess.
Repost:
This horrible situation has been in mind since I read the article a few hours ago.
What should the Japanese authorites do?
A total understatement to say I feel sorry for the kidnap victims; I am extremely worried for them.
I can't comprehend such cruelty.
[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … nappings_1]Japan/Iraq Abduction Crisis
--Cindy

There is nothing the Japanese authorities can do. Absolutely nothing.

Withdraw? Then they will be blamed for showing weakness when Italians, or Thai, or whoever else gets kidnapped next. Such behavior cannot be rewarded.

You say you cannot cannot imagine it? If anyone in our government (Condi Rice?) says such atrocities are unimaginable, they never watched [http://www.filmsite.org/apoc.html]Apocalypze Now - - isnt that the movie that talked about how US doctors would give vaccines to Vietnamese children and after we left, the Viet Cong would come and hack off the arm of any child with vaccination marks?

I fault our Administration for not anticipating precisely what is happening right now. And for not taking steps to make sure the civilian population was better protected.

= = =

Remember, Chalabi told us there really were WMD and that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and candy.

Sadly, I do believe that the vast majority of Iraqis (the silent majority) really does want the occupation and transition to work out well, more or less as the US contemplates but unless we protect those people they will be too scared to help us much. And the longer they are terrorized by Sadr, the less likely they will be to support us.

I also saw a report that the people who arranged the ambush of the four Blackwater contractors (the Americans who were mutilated) were wearing official Iraqi police uniforms.

Palomar · 2004-04-09 13:45:43

*The other thread ("What if...Vietnam II?") is breaking down, I guess.
Repost:
This horrible situation has been in mind since I read the article a few hours ago.
What should the Japanese authorites do?
A total understatement to say I feel sorry for the kidnap victims; I am extremely worried for them.
I can't comprehend such cruelty.
[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … nappings_1]Japan/Iraq Abduction Crisis
--Cindy
There is nothing the Japanese authorities can do. Absolutely nothing.
Withdraw? Then they will be blamed for showing weakness when Italians, or Thai, or whoever else gets kidnapped next. Such behavior cannot be rewarded.
You say you cannot cannot imagine it? If anyone in our government (Condi Rice?) says such atrocities are unimaginable, they never watched [http://www.filmsite.org/apoc.html]Apocalypze Now - - isnt that the movie that talked about how US doctors would give vaccines to Vietnamese children and after we left, the Viet Cong would come and hack off the arm of any child with vaccination marks?

*I've never heard of that before (Vietnam/Viet Cong).

It's beyond strange, isn't it, that humans throughout times and cultures imagine monsters as ghosts and supernatural creatures, when the real monsters are some humans.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-04-09 14:07:26

To be fair, Cindy, the incident is from the movie and may not be historically accurate, however, given what is needed to be a suicide bomber or fly an airliner into a skyscraper, these are the kind of people we are dealing with.

Willard also listens to Kurtz - in a major monologue meditating on life and death - as he recalls a turning point in his life. It was an incident from his American Special Forces days a few years earlier (it "seems a thousand centuries ago") when Vietcong guerrillas came into a native village and hacked off the left arms of South Vietnamese children who had been inoculated against polio by his Special Forces:
We'd left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't say. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile, a pile of little arms, and I remember, I...I...I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized like I was shot, like I was shot with a diamond, a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, 'My God, the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure! And then I realized they were stronger than me because they could stand it. These were not monsters. These were men -- trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts who have families, who have children, who are filled with love - that they had the strength, the strength to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, then our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill - without feeling, without passion, without judgment - without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us.

The vast majority of the Iraqi people may well be with us.

They may well be on our side and grateful for our getting rid of Saddam and offering a chance at freedom - - but if we fail to protect them from men like al-Sadr we are wasting our time over there, in Iraq.

clark · 2004-04-09 14:50:07

They may well be on our side and grateful for our getting rid of Saddam and offering a chance at freedom - - but if we fail to protect them from men like al-Sadr we are wasting our time over there, in Iraq.

Who are the men like Sadr attacking? US military and coalition forces, and their agents. This is a predominantly Shiite group, that is working with Sunni's! Not neccessarily hand in hand, but they share a common goal, which is at the exspense of US military goals.

Where do we see Sadr attacking the Sunni's? It's been the Sunni's attacking Shiite's or the foreign terroist elements imported for suicide attacks. The police force is largely standing aside becuase they can't fight them, and they probably don't want to since the violence is only being directed at US military personel. I am not supporting them in any way, or their actions, but I am trying to look at this in a balanced way.

We're not seeing refugee's fleeing for their lives, except in the cities that the US military is attacking- which are being emptied at the direction of US military.

My guess is that these actions are partly supported by the moderate Clerics becuase it will only result in more gains for them, and for the Shiite's. "Hey, you can talk to us, not him, so give us what we want, or we do nothing to check the rising anger among the Shiite population".

The Sunni's are just taking advantage of this situation, and probably have some form of understanding with the Shiite's to just stay out of each others way.

Remember, the police stations used to be bombed- now they are being taken over. There is a marked contrast in how things are playing out, and who and how people are being attacked.

Bill White · 2004-04-09 15:06:28

My intuition tells me that pro-US mayors and other similiar officials are disappearing, right now. . .

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-03-16 13:29:24

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#152 2004-03-16 13:54:06

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#153 2004-03-16 14:06:36

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#154 2004-03-16 14:16:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#155 2004-03-16 14:25:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#156 2004-03-16 15:04:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#157 2004-03-16 19:17:12

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#158 2004-03-16 19:42:11

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#159 2004-03-16 19:54:06

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#160 2004-03-16 20:19:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#161 2004-03-17 10:18:30

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#162 2004-03-17 10:31:37

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#163 2004-03-17 11:45:08

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#164 2004-03-17 12:08:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#165 2004-03-17 20:17:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#166 2004-03-18 09:22:44

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#167 2004-03-18 12:35:36

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#168 2004-03-19 19:39:05

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#169 2004-03-26 10:03:40

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#170 2004-04-09 13:03:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#171 2004-04-09 13:23:02

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#172 2004-04-09 13:45:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#173 2004-04-09 14:07:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#174 2004-04-09 14:50:07

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#175 2004-04-09 15:06:28

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer