Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Palomar · 2004-04-17 21:01:21

I hope that republicans will be smart enough to recognize that something must be done differently in Iraq, by somebody else than the world widely discredited Bush team.
Donald Trump :"Dubya ! you cannot do that insult the UN organization, force their withdrawal, then beg for their return, supporting democracy in Iraq and extremism in other countries and spending all the money like that"
Dubya " Dick told me to do that ! but pffffffew, I thought I was fired !"
Trump : "You ARE fired ! "
Dubya : " Am I ? where is Al Gore, I need his support, he knows how to deal with postelection depression"

*"The Donald" fires Dubya, then reference to Gore. :laugh:

Very good.

Can you draw (artist) as well? It would make a great political cartoon.

--Cindy

Mundaka · 2004-04-18 01:30:11

In Americas (imho flawed and antiquated) system of democracy, we have a 2 party system. Like it or lump it...
...This year we do not have the luxury of protest votes, or votes to gather future federal spending for our candidates.
This years vote will determine the fate of America.

Just a pet peeve here, but we do not have a democracy (that is, a system where everyone votes for whoever they like and you tally up the votes, and the winner makes the rules) but a representative republic (where the government is given strictly defined roles, and rules to effect them) with strong democratic overtones: that is, we get to pick the people who are supposed to follow those rules.

The problem is that nobody is following the rules anymore -- this war, for example: the congress must declare war. The president has no right to initiate warfare of any kind, and congress has no right to give the president the right to do so, or allow him to do so in any case, or to appropriate military funding for the army to fight what is de jure an unconstitutional war. The constitution allows for a standing navy, but not for a standing army -- the army budget must be voted upon every two years -- because the founding fathers feared a standing army, both as a domestic force for tyranny and as a force for empire in the hands of a Caesar.

If the Constitution were not habitually ignored, I suspect you would find the results would tickle you politically pink.

As for 3rd party votes, it depends on who you think is the third party: Libertarians, Constitutionists, Green, or Republicrats.

I hear where you are coming from though -- to place a vote for somebody who has a three percent chance of getting elected ain't exactly putting your money on a winning horse; however, I've followed that logic since 1980 and what has it got me? Jimmy Carter with an attitude. Seriously -- again, look where the rubber meets the road: at the votes. If you think Kerry will vote any different from Bush, you are wrong.

If you vote for Nader and it costs Kerry the election, you get Bush -- A.K.A. "Kerry light". If I vote Libertarian and it costs Bush the election, I get "Bush light" and no harm done either.

But no longer will the Democans/Republicrats be able to shrug at our concerns and say, "They have no where else to go."

Third parties are more of a threat than you imagine. Not only do they siphon off much needed votes in a polarized nation, but the current two party system (repubs/dems) itself is an artificial construct: take a good look at the laws that are used to keep 3rd parties out (minimum ballots, contribution limits, etc.) They are so numerous and unrealistic -- not to mention unreported -- that you have to wonder how worried the two biggies really are.

I'm convinced the the two biggies are just one party putting on a show for the gullible, and I don't want to support it. I'm voting for what I believe in, not a couple of flashy rich boy's horses.

Speaking of, I've found a guy I'm gonna vote for, Aaron Russo, he ran for governor in Nevada as a Libertarian and got over thirty percent of the vote, and I've yet to find an issue I disagree with him on. Will he win? Who cares --- I don't have to hold my nose!

Mundaka · 2004-04-18 01:40:37

Oh yeah, not to tell anybody how to do your job or anything, but this thread is getting kinda long, didn't the "Vietnam II" thread go bonkers at about the same length? Maybe we should consider a new thread to continue on? :hm:

Mundaka · 2004-04-18 02:43:12

I've had that question too. I believe it boils down to the regulations instutited (legally) by Congress on pharmacetuicals and the FDA. The FDA classifies all drugs, and is able to control their distribution. The key to legalization, decrimilization, or even medical use, is to have the FDA reclassify pot. I believe it has the same classification as crack.

I went back over your post again -- lotta good stuff there -- and I've got a question about the FDA and other assorted agencies: Where in the Constitution does congress get the right to delegate its lawmaking authority to any other body?

Or for that matter, to any hundreds of agencies, each with its own body of law, its own courts, its own rules of law, and questionable expertise about that which it legislates?

For example, the FDA: twenty five years ago you could walk into a seven eleven and get a slushy, some beef jerky, a playb . . . er magazine, and a 25 cent package of rosewood seeds. Does anybody remember those? They were a mild hallucinogen that had the ancillary effect of making every member of the opposite sex on planet earth a virtual goddess (or god, as the case may be.) Perfectly legal. They were also used by marriage councilors to help failing marriages. Does anybody remember the horrors of rosewood seeds? No? Niether do I.

Somebody -- somebody I suspect, to paraphrase Menken, woke up every night sweating with the fear that somewhere, somebody was having fun -- decided rosewood seeds had to be made illegal. Marriage counsilors still needed a similar drug, however, and some chemist made one: MDMA, which quickly hit the streets with a new name: ecstasy.

I don't know if X is the terror they make it out to be, but it seems to me they made a non-issue into one whale of a problem. Who are they to tell us how to behave?

dickbill · 2004-04-18 07:47:47

Donald Trump :"Dubya ! you cannot do that insult the UN organization, force their withdrawal, then beg for their return, supporting democracy in Iraq and extremism in other countries and spending all the money like that"
Dubya " Dick told me to do that ! but pffffffew, I thought I was fired !"
Trump : "You ARE fired ! "
Dubya : " Am I ? where is Al Gore, I need his support, he knows how to deal with postelection depression"
*"The Donald" fires Dubya, then reference to Gore. :laugh:
Very good.
Can you draw (artist) as well? It would make a great political cartoon.
--Cindy

Trump and Dubya, that would be indeed a good cartoon

clark · 2004-04-18 11:45:54

I don't know if X is the terror they make it out to be, but it seems to me they made a non-issue into one whale of a problem. Who are they to tell us how to behave?

Our betters. :laugh:

And yet you fall on the other side of the issue related to some personal choices...

Where in the Constitution does congress get the right to delegate its lawmaking authority to any other body?

Not sure, but I would assume that it comes with creating any federal agency- they imbue it with the power of Congress (or in the case of the Executive and the things like the Justice department...) by federal legislation which defines the scope of their powers. Congress can still trump them, but they don't get involved unless enough people yell bloody murder.

Alt2War · 2004-04-18 14:11:41

In Americas (imho flawed and antiquated) system of democracy, we have a 2 party system. Like it or lump it...
...This year we do not have the luxury of protest votes, or votes to gather future federal spending for our candidates.
This years vote will determine the fate of America.
Just a pet peeve here, but we do not have a democracy (that is, a system where everyone votes for whoever they like and you tally up the votes, and the winner makes the rules) but a representative republic (where the government is given strictly defined roles, and rules to effect them) with strong democratic overtones: that is, we get to pick the people who are supposed to follow those rules.
The problem is that nobody is following the rules anymore -- this war, for example: the congress must declare war. The president has no right to initiate warfare of any kind, and congress has no right to give the president the right to do so, or allow him to do so in any case, or to appropriate military funding for the army to fight what is de jure an unconstitutional war. The constitution allows for a standing navy, but not for a standing army -- the army budget must be voted upon every two years -- because the founding fathers feared a standing army, both as a domestic force for tyranny and as a force for empire in the hands of a Caesar.
If the Constitution were not habitually ignored, I suspect you would find the results would tickle you politically pink.
As for 3rd party votes, it depends on who you think is the third party: Libertarians, Constitutionists, Green, or Republicrats.
I hear where you are coming from though -- to place a vote for somebody who has a three percent chance of getting elected ain't exactly putting your money on a winning horse; however, I've followed that logic since 1980 and what has it got me? Jimmy Carter with an attitude. Seriously -- again, look where the rubber meets the road: at the votes. If you think Kerry will vote any different from Bush, you are wrong.
If you vote for Nader and it costs Kerry the election, you get Bush -- A.K.A. "Kerry light". If I vote Libertarian and it costs Bush the election, I get "Bush light" and no harm done either.
But no longer will the Democans/Republicrats be able to shrug at our concerns and say, "They have no where else to go."
Third parties are more of a threat than you imagine. Not only do they siphon off much needed votes in a polarized nation, but the current two party system (repubs/dems) itself is an artificial construct: take a good look at the laws that are used to keep 3rd parties out (minimum ballots, contribution limits, etc.) They are so numerous and unrealistic -- not to mention unreported -- that you have to wonder how worried the two biggies really are.
I'm convinced the the two biggies are just one party putting on a show for the gullible, and I don't want to support it. I'm voting for what I believe in, not a couple of flashy rich boy's horses.
Speaking of, I've found a guy I'm gonna vote for, Aaron Russo, he ran for governor in Nevada as a Libertarian and got over thirty percent of the vote, and I've yet to find an issue I disagree with him on. Will he win? Who cares --- I don't have to hold my nose!

Do I think Kerry is the right man? hell no.

But then there is the issue of the Supreme Court Justices that will come up in the next four years.

And when we lose Bush, we lose Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. That alone is reason enough to vote out the bastards.

During the Democratic Primaries, I fought like HELL to get who I thought the right man was on the ticket. I put in 30 hours a week.

But now that time is over. And I'm forced to vote stratigicly, and not my heart.

Stratigic Voting is what breaks down democratic processes. Here in america it is our only recourse.

If this were any other year, I would with you voting a protest vote. If this were any other year we would see more than 5% of the population voting with us.

But Bush is dangerous. More dangerous than Nixon. History will not be kind to this time in America. And as much as it Disgusts me to not vot FOR someone but Against someone, I feel I have no recourse.

Alt2War · 2004-04-18 16:29:48

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

– Voltaire

Marineris Sauce · 2004-04-22 14:53:52

Third parties are more of a threat than you imagine.

To our chagrin, I would have to agree with you. Here in Canada we have 3 parties, and look where it's gotten us...
We're so stymied politically we couldn't make an effective decision if our lives depended on it. But then, all we have to do is react to what the U.S. does or doesn't do, and somehow that passes for good decision making. Our weak and flimsy policies are quite flimsy, indeed, despite what our media and yours believes. ???

DonPanic · 2004-04-29 12:50:09

LO

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

Not only injustices, atrocities too !
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ … 3.shtml]US general suspended over abuse
I've changed my mind, I did support European troops sending to Irak,
now I'm too disgusted to think we can have any commitment with these non human sadist torturers

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-29 14:39:15

I've changed my mind, I did support European troops sending to Irak,
now I'm too disgusted to think we can have any commitment with these non human sadist torturers

While I'll reserve judgement until I have more information on this than what comes from C-BS news, if true this is troubling. The remarkable lack of atrocities historically is a mark of honor for the US military, I would hate to see it tarnished.

DonPanic · 2004-04-30 12:56:26

LO
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ … shtml]Your president reacts

Palomar · 2004-04-30 13:22:29

LO
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ … shtml]Your president reacts

*I didn't realize until reading -this- article that the abuses were this bad; I'd not previously seen an outline of what exactly these abuses are.

The soldiers committing these abuses should be stripped of all rank and face immediate court martial. Those idiots, damn them.

And how I remember reading stories, by comparison, of how WWII prisoners of war/civilian populace were treated by our GI's. I recall one young gal in Germany, a former Nazi Youth (or female equivalent of the male organization), who was orphaned and found in dire straights, and taken to an American base for housing until her family could be found...the base was comprised mostly if not all by men. Was she raped? Sexually harrassed? Made to "mime" sexual behaviors? Physically abused in any way? Nope. She was very afraid at first, of course, naturally. The GIs brought her breakfast, gave her chewing gum, lent her comic books, etc., treated her like a kid sister. She was so impressed by her treatment by U.S. soldiers that she later met and married one of them (and moved here).

Contrast with -today-.

Hopefully the current deplorable situation is representative of only a very small percentage of our soldiers. Hopefully...

--Cindy

::EDIT:: "Another picture shows a detainee with wires attached to his genitals. Another shows a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. There is also a picture of an Iraqi man who appears to be dead — and badly beaten. In most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up."

*Sickening! Reminds me of the horrible things I read about the treatment of Jews in concentration camps at the hands of the Nazis. Yes, it does; I hate to make -that- comparison with some of my own nation's soldiers, but the truth is the truth and I call them like I see them.

::EDIT 2:: And while I'm "on a roll," I'd like to also say I think DonPanic is being grossly unfair in trying to castigate -all- U.S. soldiers because of what the soldiers (6 known so far) in the article did to Iraqis.

And I've been opposed to the Iraqi war from the start...

Alt2War · 2004-04-30 14:02:14

I've changed my mind, I did support European troops sending to Irak,
now I'm too disgusted to think we can have any commitment with these non human sadist torturers
While I'll reserve judgement until I have more information on this than what comes from C-BS news, if true this is troubling. The remarkable lack of atrocities historically is a mark of honor for the US military, I would hate to see it tarnished.

It may, or may not, make you feel better that the perpetrators of these crimes had in part at least been Mercenaries.

Mercinaries are not subject to military law, sometimes not to American criminal law, and are an aweful representation of America.

With this blow we can now perhaps agree that the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis has been lost.

Look at the pigs, look at the men, can you see a difference?

Yes, this most likely is an acception to the rule, although I have read many, many similar accounts over the last year.

No matter the truth, the perception now is that the US are no different than the Dictators and Occupiers.

I do not for one minute discount or belittle the service men and women over there. Most serve with dignity and honor.

I dont even presume to condemn those americans who are excersizing poor judgement to the extreme, for they are enduring experiences I would not wish on my worst of enemies. Some are bound to crack.

Palomar · 2004-04-30 14:11:39

I dont even presume to condemn those americans who are excersizing poor judgement to the extreme, for they are enduring experiences I would not wish on my worst of enemies. Some are bound to crack.

*There's no excuse for abuse, Alt2War.

Apparently I haven't followed your posts closely enough all these months, because I am absolutely shocked you're taking this sort of stand.

No excuse for abuse. None.

And why do you presume the soldiers who did this "cracked" under pressure? Why give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt? This couldn't be just plain cruelty and the opportunity to act out cruelty?

Don't answer on -my- account.

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-04-30 14:13:05

LO
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ … shtml]Your president reacts
*I didn't realize until reading -this- article that the abuses were this bad; I'd not previously seen an outline of what exactly these abuses are.
The soldiers committing these abuses should be stripped of all rank and face immediate court martial. Those idiots, damn them.
And how I remember reading stories, by comparison, of how WWII prisoners of war/civilian populace were treated by our GI's. I recall one young gal in Germany, a former Nazi Youth (or female equivalent of the male organization), who was orphaned and found in dire straights, and taken to an American base for housing until her family could be found...the base was comprised mostly if not all by men. Was she raped? Sexually harrassed? Made to "mime" sexual behaviors? Physically abused in any way? Nope. She was very afraid at first, of course, naturally. The GIs brought her breakfast, gave her chewing gum, lent her comic books, etc., treated her like a kid sister. She was so impressed by her treatment by U.S. soldiers that she later met and married one of them (and moved here).
Contrast with -today-.
Hopefully the current deplorable situation is representative of only a very small percentage of our soldiers. Hopefully...
--Cindy
::EDIT:: "Another picture shows a detainee with wires attached to his genitals. Another shows a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. There is also a picture of an Iraqi man who appears to be dead — and badly beaten. In most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up."
*Sickening! Reminds me of the horrible things I read about the treatment of Jews in concentration camps at the hands of the Nazis. Yes, it does; I hate to make -that- comparison with some of my own nation's soldiers, but the truth is the truth and I call them like I see them.

::EDIT 2:: And while I'm "on a roll," I'd like to also say I think DonPanic is being grossly unfair in trying to castigate -all- U.S. soldiers because of what the soldiers (6 known so far) in the article did to Iraqis.
And I've been opposed to the Iraqi war from the start...

I read about these abuses somewhere around a year ago from foreign news sources.

I had many doubts about the stories validity because the grotesque nature and the lack of coverage in the mainstream press.

Only now they come out.

What does that tell you about american press?

I try so very hard to keep myself from becoming a paranoid, press doubting conspiracy theorist. But so much of what I read in the dark allies of the internet is only lately coming out to be proven true.

And the truth is, the grim secrets that come out of the woodwork are bad, but there is much more that is happening currently in America out in the open to be outraged about.

Rxke · 2004-04-30 14:21:51

What shocked me the most was the faces, the smiles, thumbs-up... of the men and women doing this... They were really posing for the camera, as if proud in doing the things they did...

And then the utter b********t about 'we never saw a text with the Geneva Convention' as a lame excuse, that one merits a medal!

Idiots, they were clearly treatiing their prisoners as sub-humans...

And, BTW: what are mercenaries doing in a *jail* if i may ask?

troubling troubling troubling...

Palomar · 2004-04-30 15:41:46

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3675215.stm]UK soldier(s) implicated as well.

It's a graphic photo, so be warned (it's being written up currently as an allegation, not yet proven).

::shakes head sadly::

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2004-04-30 16:18:15

LO
I'm not judging US army behaviour. I know too much that french troops did commit torture during Algeria liberation war, and that was ordered by highest army command level. A whole class of age conscript soldiers came back to France, wakening at night with the long and desperate screams of tortured guys nightmares.
None of them never talked about Algeria, trying so hard to forget..
Just no reports of laughing soldiers merry with the atrocities they knew they were commiting, when trying to get informations on the coming on next terrorist attacks.
How can you ask me to accept my citizen young fellows to get involved with that again ?

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-30 18:15:44

Before going any further I shoould say this, the soldiers who committed these acts are an insult to the uniform and should be disciplined severely. Were it my call, there'd probably be some field executions widely publicized to the locals.

However, I'm curious as to who these Iraqi prisoners are. If they're soldiers, whether Iraqi army, Fedayeen, or unaffiliated terrorist thugs these acts are unacceptable and executions are in order.

If they're the people who used to run the prison, Saddam's torturers, murderers and rapists... my outrage will be lessened. To be blunt, in that case I'm more concerned that they took pictures. It's still dishonorable and unworthy of American soldiers, but somehow less offensive if the victims once regularly dealt out much worse.

I don't know which is the case yet. I suspect the former, but haven't yet looked into the matter thoroughly.

Either way, I think this indicates a level of cultural decay in this country. It may well be an indication that as a whole we are becoming less civilized. If that is the case, this is merely the first chill breeze. A storm is coming...

Palomar · 2004-04-30 19:12:23

Just no reports of laughing soldiers merry with the atrocities they knew they were commiting, when trying to get informations on the coming on next terrorist attacks.
How can you ask me to accept my citizen young fellows to get involved with that again ?

*Hi DonPanic: Okay, I see your point of view. I don't ask that France involve itself again. France apparently has its reasons for not involving itself in the Iraq war.

I (a U.S. citizen) wish the U.S. had never started the Iraq war and I've never changed my position on that.

Cobra Commander:
Either way, I think this indicates a level of cultural decay in this country. It may well be an indication that as a whole we are becoming less civilized.

*Yes, I think this is so. Unfortunately.

Cobra Commander: If they're the people who used to run the prison, Saddam's torturers, murderers and rapists... my outrage will be lessened. To be blunt, in that case I'm more concerned that they took pictures. It's still dishonorable and unworthy of American soldiers, but somehow less offensive if the victims once regularly dealt out much worse.

*But we can't have vigilanteeism. And no matter what those Iraqis -might- have done, the U.S. soldiers involved proved themselves no better. And there's the rub.

I don't suppose I need to point out that, "thanks" to those 6 dumbf*ck soldiers, we face more hatred and attacks than ever, especially the other guys and gals in uniform currently over there.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-30 20:33:00

I agree with CC. (funny how often I've said that! ) in as much as there probably would have been a few very public field executions by now, if I were in charge, in an attempt to win back the confidence of the Iraqis in coalition justice.
Cindy, too, is 100% correct that there can never be any excuse for this sort of behaviour - never! It makes me feel sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

Having said that, we mustn't throw the baby out with the bath water. The vast majority of coalition troops are behaving honourably and doing a great job under difficult circumstances. I salute them all.

For the record, since Cindy has restated her position, I have the following viewpoint:-
1) Everybody was convinced, before the war, that WMD or their constituents existed in Iraq. Even the Australian Labor Party, stoutly anti-war before and since, stated this firm belief.
2) The war was definitely legal; the 1991 war was still technically in progress, interrupted only by a conditional ceasefire. The conditions were broken repeatedly by Saddam. (A fresh U.N. mandate would have been nice, but not necessary legally.)
3) The war was moral. The Iraqi lives saved since last year by Saddam's removal vouch for this fact.
4) A democratic Iraq will be a stabilising influence in a troubled region.
5) The war was not "for oil". The Iraqi people will now get the benefit of at least $20 billion dollars in oil revenue per annum to help them rebuild after years of economic stagnation.
6) It now appears that the stance against the war was likely "for oil"! See my post at the other "Appropriate Topics .."
7) Libya's renunciation of WMD has been expedited by the obvious resolve of the coalition to pre-empt terrorism if the situation demands it.
8) Iran's willingness to open its nuclear program to inspection has been attributed to nervousness in Tehran that the coalition might be taking a bead on them too.
(The last two items may be open to interpretation but, whichever spin you put on them, the liberation of Iraq has certainly done the free world no harm in relation to either of those countries.)

I supported the war and I still believe it was the right thing to do. I've never made any secret of that, of course.

[O.K. I'll shutup now! ]

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-01 01:10:07

Absolutely correct, Shaun. I couldn't have said it better

Palomar · 2004-05-01 05:44:14

Shaun: I agree with CC. (funny how often I've said that! ) in as much as there probably would have been a few very public field executions by now, if I were in charge, in an attempt to win back the confidence of the Iraqis in coalition justice.

*Well, here's what shouldn't happen to those 6 soldiers: Book deals, made-for-TV-movie deals, offers to guest star for huge $$ on reality TV shows or game shows, etc., etc. What -should- be made of them are pariahs. God knows serial killers sometimes get celebrity treatment... :angry:

Shaun: The vast majority of coalition troops are behaving honourably and doing a great job under difficult circumstances. I salute them all.

*Agreed. And the sooner we bring them home, the better.

Shaun: The war was moral. The Iraqi lives saved since last year by Saddam's removal vouch for this fact.

*Shaun, I like you very much, on a personal basis. This is the strongest point of disagreement I've had with you about anything. It's very difficult for me to see this point especially, considering all the flag-draped coffins coming home. I still don't believe it's possible to fight for someone else's freedom. And all things considered, Iraq probably will fall again into a dictatorship. I think, overall, this has been a senseless travesty of a war.

By the way (general comment, not directed at Shaun): Today is the 1-year anniversary of Bush announcing the major combat was "over" in Iraq, "Mission Accomplished." I think anyone in a position of power (Bush) who declares war should be obligated to send their own children (Barbara and Jenna) into battle (front lines). Then we'll see how important this or that war is...

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-01 06:15:15

Guys, I know you got two different discussions going on and stuff, but I really ought to lock this. Sorry. Feel free to start it (this particular tangent discussion you're having) up again elsewhere.

PS I agree with Shaun, save for some ity bity details not even worth mentioning, believe it or not. Surprise! :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-04-17 21:01:21

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#202 2004-04-18 01:30:11

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#203 2004-04-18 01:40:37

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#204 2004-04-18 02:43:12

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#205 2004-04-18 07:47:47

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#206 2004-04-18 11:45:54

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#207 2004-04-18 14:11:41

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#208 2004-04-18 16:29:48

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#209 2004-04-22 14:53:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#210 2004-04-29 12:50:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#211 2004-04-29 14:39:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#212 2004-04-30 12:56:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#213 2004-04-30 13:22:29

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#214 2004-04-30 14:02:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#215 2004-04-30 14:11:39

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#216 2004-04-30 14:13:05

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#217 2004-04-30 14:21:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#218 2004-04-30 15:41:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#219 2004-04-30 16:18:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#220 2004-04-30 18:15:44

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#221 2004-04-30 19:12:23

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#222 2004-04-30 20:33:00

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#223 2004-05-01 01:10:07

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#224 2004-05-01 05:44:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#225 2004-05-01 06:15:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer