Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 13:50:28

The previous thread is getting heavy, so to avoid meltdown . . . continue flogging dead horses.

clark · 2004-12-08 14:24:28

I'm not going to bother quoting you, but Stryker is used by the regular troops. The people complaining are the National Guard and Reservist units that are short changed.

This is just more evidence of the poor planning that has gone into this whole Iraq mess. Rumsfeld gave the equivelant of a shrug to the civilian-military units when it came to the issue of armor protection.

What I picked up on is that the US public is being told that our troops have been "upgraded", then I hear from the ground that "upgraded" means level 3, which dosen't do all that much, and is still lacking for the non-regular units- the guys who are getting bushwacked by road side bombs and sniped by ambushes along the convey lines (which might be protected, and armor issues irrelevant if we sent more troops in).

But whatever.

Palomar · 2004-12-08 14:37:02

The previous thread is getting heavy, so to avoid meltdown . . . continue flogging dead horses.

*LOL! "...continue flogging dead horses..." teehee

I like the way you put "II" instead of "2", Cobra. It fits you (classy, with an imperial flare). That's a compliment (and nothing to do with your politics nor my points of disagreement or agreement with you, but rather your posting style).

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-12-08 14:40:32

``Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?'' asked Army Specialist Thomas Wilson, drawing cheers from about 2,000 troops at Cam Buehring, Kuwait, in an exchange broadcast on Cable News Network.
``You have to go to war with the Army you have,'' Rumsfeld replied, adding that about 400 Humvees, the squat military vehicles that have replaced Army jeeps, are being equipped with armor every month. That's as fast as the military can work ``at this moment,'' he said.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 14:43:20

the guys who are getting bushwacked by road side bombs and sniped by ambushes along the convey lines (which might be protected, and armor issues irrelevant if we sent more troops in).

Which is the real point. The enemy avoids our front-line forces whenever possible, they go out of their way to attack the weakest targets. They hit supply convoys, trucks are easy prey. It can be argued that we should have heavier escorts for these convoys (I'd take that position) but we'll still have some poor bastards that have to drive an unarmored truck while getting shot at.

Troops fighting in cities are often on foot by necessity, a Kevlar helmet and flak jacket is about all that can be done as far as armor goes. We could roll the tanks in, but it would require a very different approach. The powers that be could announce that any building housing insurgents will be leveled, roll tanks in and block by block pound into dust any hint of resistance, but it's been decided that destroying the cities is counter-productive and to be avoided. That approach has inherent limitations that can't be solved by armored vehicles or more troops. We're limited not by our capabilites but by our own restraint.

BWhite · 2004-12-08 14:46:54

Isn't our restraint dictated by our goals? Using less restraint undermines our objectives.

Therefore, have we deployed the resources needed to achieve our objectives?

clark · 2004-12-08 14:49:17

Which is the real point. The enemy avoids our front-line forces whenever possible, they go out of their way to attack the weakest targets. They hit supply convoys, trucks are easy prey. It can be argued that we should have heavier escorts for these convoys (I'd take that position) but we'll still have some poor bastards that have to drive an unarmored truck while getting shot at.

Well, your position then, is more in line with those who have pointed out the failures of going into Iraq light, and staying in Iraq light.

We SHOULD have heavier escorts, thus mooting the point of armor, since the supply lines could be protected. But in order to do that we need more troops on the ground.

Oh wait, we have enough troops, and we fight with the army we have.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 15:07:08

Isn't our restraint dictated by our goals? Using less restraint undermines our objectives.

Indeed it is, but our goals are in some respects as misguided as our strategy. The current approach is pure moderate folly, carefully walking the middle.

If we wanted a friendly client state we should have found or created a faction and backed them. Otherwise, we should have conquered them and dictated terms, dealing swiftly and brutally with resistance. We instead chose a muddled halfway approach.

Well, your position then, is more in line with those who have pointed out the failures of going into Iraq light, and staying in Iraq light.

My position is that we went in too light to conquer them outright but too heavy to merely back a popular uprising (a possibility we'd already blown in '91) Big crushing footprint or tiny nudging one.

We SHOULD have heavier escorts, thus mooting the point of armor, since the supply lines could be protected. But in order to do that we need more troops on the ground.

Not necessarily. We can use larger supply convoys less frequently, escorted by tanks and helicopter gunships. These tanks and helos can come from forces already there by restructuringing our approach. Rather than trying to stabilize the entire country we could treat each hotspot as a separate uprising, crushing them one by one. Sweep heavily through Baghdad, clear it, turn it over to Iraqi forces, move one to the next one. On and on until it's done. If the country splits in the process, so be it.

This requires more effectively identifying insurgents, which among other things requires using the apparatus already in place. The wise approach would have been to at the outset embrace the Iraqi army and Saddam's security forces, offer them more than they had before in exchange for cooperation. Co-opt the whole system. Unfortunately, it's probably too late for this, leaving us with having to build new ties among the population and government, which in turn requires that we reward and protect those who help us and punish those who oppose us, all while minimizing trouble for the average citizen just trying to get by. It can be done, but it's not compatible with creating a democratic state on a greatly accelerated schedule.

As I've said on many occasions the current Administration is making mistakes, some of them severe. But it doesn't mean the whole thing is lost.

Oh wait, we have enough troops, and we fight with the army we have.

That part works well. Now we're trying to police with the army we have, and policing is not what armies are for.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1102540062

BWhite · 2004-12-08 15:14:14

What is interesting are there are numerous reports that the major news outlets are editing out the cheering that followed this grunt's question. Cheering for the question, not the answer.

Prediction. No more non-vetted Q&A sessions. ???

Edited By BWhite on 1102540497

Palomar · 2004-12-08 16:19:34

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … rmor_1]Two other soldiers (Marines) chime in on the armor issue.

On the other side of the base, Capt. Joe Winslow, 36, of Dallas, said it is not so much the armor but the tactics of the Marines that has been a lifesaver.
"It's the aggressive convoy procedures, paying attention to the basics, vigilance by the gunner and the driver," said Winslow.
Winslow said he had just seen footage of the soldiers' exchange with Rumsfeld on television and was "surprised" because the armor we have is "top notch."
"I don't know why they said what they said. I can't speak for another person," he said.
"Every time I go outside the base, I am aware that what keeps me safe is not only in the equipment I have but in the mentality of being a Marine," said Gunnery Sgt. Mike Ritchie.

*Well, for their safety and sake (which is all that matters) I certainly hope so.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-12-08 19:41:38

Armour protection is really not the issue, especially not in guerilla warfare. A tank can always be knocked out from the sides by a single guy manning a HEAT shell launcher of some sorts. The non-verbalized dream of the Cold War era was to find an armour resistant and thick enough to inabilitate the one front hit, one kill scenario, which by that time had reached a critical stage of development due to vastly improved accuracy and penetration power. Basically, whoever shot the first APFS (put in whatever following abbreviation you want) round won. This is what the thick armour of the Leopard II Improved and the M1 Abrams A2 was all about, all conceived within the conceptual restraints of tank versus tank warfare on a western European battlefield. It has absolutely nothing to do with the situation facing occupational forces in Iraq.

As for APC's and IFV's, their armor is primarily designed to deflect artillery shrapnel. There is no way you could improve that armour to withstand antitank sniping from freedom fighter ambushes, provided the latter are at least armed with RPG's.

Iraq, the wrong war at the wrong moment for the wrong reasons. Result: quagmire.

Carried over from the previous thread, Cobra, I'm a little disappointed in you. Are you seriously implying that vehicle fuel conversion is best handled by public preferences and capitalism?

Yeah I know, that wasn't fair. There was more to your statement than that. Let me present you all with the car of the future the public will want to crave, whether fuelled by gasoline or hydrogen fuel cells or what not (provided of course it makes a magnificent V-Eight cylinder roar). Oh yeah, and it's *not* a SUV.

http://www.blackhawkauto.org/autocollec … ucker.JPEG

Palomar · 2004-12-08 20:35:15

Armour protection is really not the issue, especially not in guerilla warfare. A tank can always be knocked out from the sides by a single guy manning a HEAT shell launcher of some sorts. The non-verbalized dream of the Cold War era was to find an armour resistant and thick enough to inabilitate the one front hit, one kill scenario, which by that time had reached a critical stage of development due to vastly improved accuracy and penetration power. Basically, whoever shot the first APFS (put in whatever following abbreviation you want) round won. This is what the thick armour of the Leopard II Improved and the M1 Abrams A2 was all about, all conceived within the conceptual restraints of tank versus tank warfare on a western European battlefield.

*Well, I disagree; *it's the principle of the matter.* On this evening's news, soldiers were shown cutting apart pieces of some sort of metal -- which was originally intended for road construction -- with a (geez...I don't know the correct names for some of these things!) welding torch(?). Cutting slabs of metal apart and fashioning doors from them, and also creating higher walls for the vehicles, and reinforcing roofs, etc.

Having to be "Monster Garage in Baghdad" (or Fallujah, etc.) shouldn't even be an issue for our soldiers; they shouldn't be in this position (make it yourself or die).

It has absolutely nothing to do with the situation facing occupational forces in Iraq.

*It shouldn't have anything to do with their situation because they shouldn't have to deal with the additional stress and pressure. Protection in the form of armor and etc. should be readily available and providable at all times -- should be in SURPLUS, in fact.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-09 01:41:13

Gennaro:-

Iraq, the wrong war at the wrong moment for the wrong reasons. Result: quagmire.

... In your opinion, which is as valid as anyone else's, of course.

CC:-

Rather than trying to stabilize the entire country we could treat each hotspot as a separate uprising, crushing them one by one. Sweep heavily through Baghdad, clear it, turn it over to Iraqi forces, move one to the next one. On and on until it's done.

It looks to me as though that's what's being done and I think it makes sense, though it isn't quick or easy The enemies of Iraq are mobile and, because of their ability to blend in with the ordinary Iraqis and effectively use them as shields, are all but invisible. While the Iraqi/Coalition forces may identify concentrations of these terrorists in certain towns at certain times, a focused attack sees many or most of the murderers slink away to another place to fight another day.
This seems to almost delight most of the Australian news media, who were against Iraq's liberation and have an unfortunate and childish urge to jump up and down, point the finger, and say "I told you so" at every opportunity. (Oops! I'd better not go there because I get a terrible roasting from the 'glorious-doom-and-gloom' merchants whenever I bring up the subject of deliberate defeatism in the media. :;): ).
But contending with this 'melting away' of the enemy slows the progress of stabilisation and tragically costs the lives of our infantry, ever the bearers of the brunt of the dirty work in any war. <Incidentally, there's never been a war yet where the generals didn't wish for more troops; you can never have enough.>

There are various estimates for the total number of anti-democratic forces in Iraq but the figure is probably in the region of several thousand. Possibly 1200 to 1600 of them were killed in Fallujah but many more escaped and there's a large nest of them currently in the western suburbs of Mosul.
Their whereabouts and their comings and goings are under surveillance by UAVs and satellites and I'm sure they will be attacked when the time is right. In the course of that attack, unfortunately and inevitably, more of our ground troops will perish. But, with any luck, perhaps another thousand or so of the terrorists will be eliminated and further large caches of their weapons captured.

It's a war of attrition but it's one we can and must win, and I believe we will. Although the Australian media revel in rubbing our noses in any and all bad news from Iraq as often as possible, I always take heart in the realisation that bad news is their natural stock-in-trade and their stance is transparently anything but neutral. For every cynical and murderous act by the terrorists, there are positive and constructive works by the Coalition going on (unreported by the media), which will ultimately serve the people of Iraq well.

I'm optimistic that Israel and the Palestinian people will reach an understanding in the near future, too. I believe Egypt has stepped up to the plate in a welcome effort to find a solution to the problem and I think that's very encouraging, especially now Arafat's malignant touch is absent from the situation. (Before I'm accused of something, I stress that I'm no fan of Sharon either.)
I'm hopeful that with a democratically elected government in Iraq in the New Year, and a new peace in Israel/Palestine brokered by the Egyptians and the Bush Administration in America, the outlook in the Middle East will be much improved. (Regrettably, I've met people who I'm convinced would rather see hostilities in Israel continue indefinitely than have peace there attributed in any way to President 'Cowboy' Bush. Such is the almost pathological intensity of some people's anti-Bush mindset.)

Anyhow, I wish all Iraqi and Coalition troops fighting oppression in Iraq all the very best for the Festive Season - "Good hunting!". And may ordinary peace-loving Iraqis and Palestinians find much needed relief from grief and turmoil in 2005.
:up:

Gennaro · 2004-12-09 06:06:24

On this evening's news, soldiers were shown cutting apart pieces of some sort of metal -- which was originally intended for road construction -- with a (geez...I don't know the correct names for some of these things!) welding torch(?). Cutting slabs of metal apart and fashioning doors from them, and also creating higher walls for the vehicles, and reinforcing roofs, etc.
Having to be "Monster Garage in Baghdad" (or Fallujah, etc.) shouldn't even be an issue for our soldiers; they shouldn't be in this position (make it yourself or die).

Well, you are right of course. Last night I had been out with the boys drinking brewskies, so I was in my drunken besserwisser mode. Excuse me for sounding so arrogant.

Clearly, the metal slabs are for protection from small arms fire. Hm, couldn't the US infantry simply trade in their Humvees for M-113's? There ought to be thousands of those standing around in US military facilities.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 06:59:58

This is what the thick armour of the Leopard II Improved and the M1 Abrams A2 was all about, all conceived within the conceptual restraints of tank versus tank warfare on a western European battlefield. It has absolutely nothing to do with the situation facing occupational forces in Iraq.

Exactly, and now we have an excellent Soviet-crushing army fighting guerrillas in the streets of MidEast cities. As always, one war behind. It's almost one of the rules. If this drags on long enough we'll no doubt have the perfect urban warfare armored terrorist squasher (UWATS?) about the time we need something totally different.

Which is to say again that "more armor" isn't the answer because the problem isn't the one our armor was designed for.

Carried over from the previous thread, Cobra, I'm a little disappointed in you. Are you seriously implying that vehicle fuel conversion is best handled by public preferences and capitalism?

Merely that with some slight nudging and persuasion that capitalism can made to work toward those ends. It's always more effective to make people want to do a thing than to just make them do it.

Let me present you all with the car of the future the public will want to crave, whether fuelled by gasoline or hydrogen fuel cells or what not (provided of course it makes a magnificent V-Eight cylinder roar). Oh yeah, and it's *not* a SUV.

http://www.blackhawkauto.org/autocollection/tucker.JPEG
http://www.blackhawkauto.org/autocollection/tucker.JPEG

:laugh: The Tucker Torpedo, I don't know why but I've always liked that car.

I actually had the chance to examine a Tucker several years ago, odd piece of machinery from the rear-mount engine to that third headlight, great for messing with oncoming traffic if nothing else. Ugly and weird, but in an endearing sort of way.

Only the one I was looking at was painted a vile shade of green that doesn't exist in nature, with the possible exception of coughed-up infection-ridden bile.

Protection in the form of armor and etc. should be readily available and providable at all times -- should be in SURPLUS, in fact.

Depending on what specifically we're talking about. Apparently there is a shortage of body armor in some units (production has increased, most suppliers are no longer selling to non-military buyers without extra levels of paperwork and then only if their military orders are met) but none of the first-hand sources I'm have any contact with have express much concern. Aside from a few jokes about buying extra trauma plates for bullet-proof vests while in Detroit.

If we're talking about vehicles we're back to soldiers driving trucks or Humvees, vehicle that aren't designed to be heavily armored. Add a extra 500 pounds of armor to a Humvee it's no longer able to do what it was designed for, can't be transported as planned, and doesn't help that much anyway. If soldiers find themselves in a specific scenario where all they have is that vehicle and additional armor is desireable without heavy tradeoffs, then some "Road Warrior" modifications might be in order. It happens, always has. While I'd prefer to give our troops 100% invulnerable armor without compromising mobility, speed, or situational awareness it unfortunately just isn't possible. In effect the more heavily armored our forces the less precise they'll be. A B-52 can level a city, a tank can level a building, a grunt with an M-4 can search that building and kill the two bad guys inside. It's been decided that greater precision is worth greater risk and that decision sets the framework that must be worked with, until it's decided otherwise.

It looks to me as though that's what's being done and I think it makes sense, though it isn't quick or easy The enemies of Iraq are mobile and, because of their ability to blend in with the ordinary Iraqis and effectively use them as shields, are all but invisible.

Yes, Coalition forces are now beginning to take the "nest clearing" approach though after a far too long period of hesitation. Still totally salvageable and they're getting on track, but there's a ways to go yet.

It may even be possible to use the enemy's ability to slip away to our advantage. If given a route of retreat in the face of overwhelming force any adversary will usually take it. If planned out properly we can drive them where we want them for a final confrontation or push them across the border if that suits us.

Provided of course that the Iraqi forces can root out and handle those that try to blend in while the wave passes over them, which would have been easier had we used Saddam's governing apparatus from the outset.

Clearly, the metal slabs are for protection from small arms fire. Hm, couldn't the US infantry simply trade in their Humvees for M-113's? There ought to be thousands of those standing around in US military facilities.

Perhaps not so much a trade-in as Humvees are meant for different purposes than the old M-113, but thanks to "lighter, faster" they're loaded up with 50 cals, TOWs and all sorts of other ordnance for jobs they shouldn't be doing. Maybe just pulling out some M-113's for use in the cities, slap some reactive armor on... have to check on how many are still around in storage and where.

Or we can get forty-some Tuckers and send those.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1102597287

BWhite · 2004-12-09 07:40:57

I cannot find the link, but some retired military guys (very Red State type folk - funny how colors change meaning) posted stuff to a military hardware websute (16 months ago) calling to withdraw the Hummvees and send hundreds of old M113s instead.

Compelling stories about scrounging armor for duece & half ton trucks in Vietnam as well.

There was also a story about using flatbed trucks as "Q-ships" - - inside the canvas cover deploy 4 Marines with heavy weapons and a sandbag and metal armor bunker, on the truck.

When ambushed, strip away the canvas and start firing.

Josh Cryer · 2004-12-09 08:48:12

Aw, I missed the fun. My mom calls me last night, "Wow they got Rummy the Dummy good!"

Prediction. No more non-vetted Q&A sessions.

:up:

Palomar · 2004-12-09 09:01:36

Protection in the form of armor and etc. should be readily available and providable at all times -- should be in SURPLUS, in fact.
Depending on what specifically we're talking about. Apparently there is a shortage of body armor in some units (production has increased, most suppliers are no longer selling to non-military buyers without extra levels of paperwork and then only if their military orders are met) but none of the first-hand sources I'm have any contact with have express much concern.

*It's simply embarrassing, though, to hear a U.S. soldier feeling compelled to point out that they're having to search and sift through rusted rubble piles to find materials to better protect themselves with! This is inexcusable on the government's part.

And Rumsfeld pretending not to understand the question (yeah, right), please repeat it (why, Mr. Secretary? Got your knickers pulled down in public did you?), etc. Then seeming to brush it off with an "oh well (ho-hum), you're liable to get killed anyway" sort of response. :-\

Our soldiers' safety should come first and foremost. No excuses.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 09:15:13

*It's simply embarrassing, though, to hear a U.S. soldier feeling compelled to point out that they're having to search and sift through rusted rubble piles to find materials to better protect themselves with! This is inexcusable on the government's part.

Oh, I agree, I don't like it either that soldiers of the greatest military power in history have to pull this Mad Max stuff to bulletproof their vehicle, but it's a direct result of the new reality we're in. We have a military built around the singular goal of smashing a Soviet invasion of Europe and it was exquisitely suited to that task. We're currently in the middle of reformatting it while using it to police a whole country. Ours is an army meant to kill other armies, not occupy countries. Overwhelming defense, not conquest.

It's like trying to go to the Moon using nothing but Shuttle hardware, you might be able to do it but you'll have some cobbled together gear in the process.

Our soldiers' safety should come first and foremost. No excuses.

In that case, level the cities from the air and clean up when everyone's dead. ???

Everything's a tradeoff, we either slaughter hundreds of thousands of noncombatants or we expose our soldiers to greater risk. It's a matter of degrees whatever course we take.

clark · 2004-12-09 09:16:30

"Tough it out Marine", works with Marines. "Military Planning", is understood by regular Infantry on a daily basis. Seamen watch the shore, and Airforce recline in the officer's lounge.

Who is complaining is the weekend warriors who are pulling a greater and greater percentage of the duty assignments that require them to traverse dangerous and unsecured areas. They are supposed to run behind the lines with supplies, safe and sound, in the rear with the gear, as it were.

Because the amorphous nature of this conflict, and the lack of regular infrantry for protection, these lightly armed and lightly armored units are being subjected to dangers which were not planned for.

The regular units, the actual military, they really aren't complaining. They know their job, and they know this is part of it. National Guard and Reservists are citizen warriors- they have different expectations and are receiving less than what they feel is adquete given the conditions they face.

Poor planning brought us here and I see no signs that anything is being rectified. It is merely being ignored and brushed aside. This spells serious trouble because while the regular military component is reaching quota (by reducing standards) the Reservist component is not meeting quota and looks to lose troops.

Our military is designed to utilize and rely on the Reservist component- 30-40% of all non-fighting jobs are handled by these guys and gals.

The reason a lot of generals stated we needed more troops was to protect the supply lines- to protect these guys that are complaining that they don't have the tools they need to do their job. The troops that are being held there beyond their stays and the additional troops added to the theater are not going for supply support- they are going to try and make the election safe. Again, the reservists and national guard are being ignored.

Palomar · 2004-12-09 09:41:01

Our soldiers' safety should come first and foremost. No excuses.
In that case, level the cities from the air and clean up when everyone's dead. ???

C'mon, Cobra. You know I didn't mean that. I know there will be casualties and etc., unavoidable to an extent. No prissiness on my part.

But with the casuality number at 1001 as of yesterday...

Yes, I suppose everything is a tradeoff but safety should still be a primary concern -- especially if extra measures of safety can be "had." That should go without saying.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 09:55:15

C'mon, Cobra. You know I didn't mean that.

Yes, I know. Just illustrating the extreme. If safety for our soldiers is top priority at all costs, it then reduces concern for the safety of Iraqi noncombatants to insignificance, which in turn requires an all around more brutal approach in general.

Perhaps I'll send some feelers to the active military people I know personally, try to get as much first-hand feedback on the armor (vehicle and body) issue as possible and comments on a growing list of suggestions. Not that anyone with authority probably ever reads the Cobra "memos", but you never know.

But hey, someone finally picked up on Jambalaya MRE's so who can say?

BWhite · 2004-12-09 11:30:30

Cobra, the regular Army & Marines are doing just fine. It is the National Guard that is getting dumped on.

Joing the Guard is no way to escape this war.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 11:51:16

Cobra, the regular Army & Marines are doing just fine. It is the National Guard that is getting dumped on.

I'm aware of that, the Guard always gets last dibs on equipment. Only in Iraq we advanced so quickly amid the disintegrating Iraqi army that the transition from "front" to "rear echelon" happened on paper only.

Again, policing with forces never meant, equipped nor properly trained for such tasks.

So we can either bring in more of them, give them heavier vehicles (the M-113 suggestion or similar) or adjust regular forces to fully engage in "nest clearing" and escorting supply convoys.

We can't have our soldiers as safe as possible and steady progress and no Iraqi civilian deaths and done cheaply. We have to find a balance, and each mistake narrows our options further toward full-on Roman, which requires much broader changes.

City by city with regular forces, then bring in Iraqi troops and Guard units with armored vehicles for occupation, laying the brunt of the grunt work on the Iraqis, being that it's their country, if they want freedom they have to earn it. Adjust deployment of regulars as needed, hitting swift and hard when required.

Which means all this pretense of "liberators, not occupiers" and minimal footprint approaches has to go. Either we get harder (which doesn't require one more soldier than is already there) or we just come home and let it burn, maybe come back again in 20 years.

Joing the Guard is no way to escape this war.

Should it be? Particularly when there's no draft?

BWhite · 2004-12-09 12:11:57

The Christian Left http://www.ucc.org/news/u120904.htm]fights back.

Seems that CBS and NBC decided that a United Church of Christ TV commercial (which portrayed rejecting gays as being un-Christlike) was "too controversial" given the White House stance on gay marriage.

= = =

Here is a link to the http://www.stillspeaking.com/intro1.htm]controversial ad - - pretty darn good ad, IMHO.

Edited By BWhite on 1102616650

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-12-08 13:50:28

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#2 2004-12-08 14:24:28

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#3 2004-12-08 14:37:02

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#4 2004-12-08 14:40:32

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#5 2004-12-08 14:43:20

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#6 2004-12-08 14:46:54

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#7 2004-12-08 14:49:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#8 2004-12-08 15:07:08

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#9 2004-12-08 15:14:14

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#10 2004-12-08 16:19:34

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#11 2004-12-08 19:41:38

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#12 2004-12-08 20:35:15

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#13 2004-12-09 01:41:13

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#14 2004-12-09 06:06:24

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#15 2004-12-09 06:59:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#16 2004-12-09 07:40:57

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#17 2004-12-09 08:48:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#18 2004-12-09 09:01:36

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#19 2004-12-09 09:15:13

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#20 2004-12-09 09:16:30

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#21 2004-12-09 09:41:01

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#22 2004-12-09 09:55:15

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#23 2004-12-09 11:30:30

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#24 2004-12-09 11:51:16

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#25 2004-12-09 12:11:57

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer