Political Potlock I

DonPanic · 2006-01-23 10:37:47

LO
I'm having some fun reading your saloon strategy, Commodore and RIZ4ROCKET.
Wonder if you even know Iran's geography and history.. :shock:

At first, Iran is four times geographically more extended than Iraq, so that any invader will need more than a million soldiers to have any chance to control the whole country. The country have high mountains, desert zones, more than 4000 miles borderlines, and 70 millions inhabitants.
So, the cost of a war at Iran should be four times higher than war at Saddam.

You think that Iranians will welcome US troops ?
They learned History and know that USA had already ousted Mossadegh to replace him by the Shah which has been quickly hatred by the populace. Hating the mollahs doesn't mean that Iranians will love their ennemies, specially if they are the "big Satan".
My son in law toured Syria, jordan and Labanon last year. He can't be called a nationalist, but for the first time in his life, he had to stick a french flag on his T-shirt to prevent any agressivity at him. Even the young Syrians eating in MacDonald's deeply hate USA. I guess it would be the same in Iran. All Iranians were fed at school with an intense anti US propaganda.
Iranians suffered more than 1 million victims during Iraq-Iran war, when the West supported Saddam; they suffered gaz attacks, and their greed for nuke armament is popular: they never want to be threatened or attacked with WMD.
Iranians are traditionnaly ennemies of the Arabs. Iran is diplomatically isolated.
The Ahmedinejad anti Israel speeches are just a poor attempt to gather some support among extremist arabs.

Poor strategists are the ones who are unable to realize what is the ennemy point of view. :twisted:

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-01-23 21:52:42

I really DON'T know the history of Iran, but am interested.

Never mentioned the idea of "war" in the formal sense, nor did I think the occupation of Iran would be easy or even desirable. In fact, I think I read somewhere here on this forum the difference in geographical area between Iran & Iraq.

My point was simply that it is not just the US and Israel that has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons; their Arab "brethren" have an equal or greater interest than we do, as they are on the Nuclear front lines.

Poor strategists are the ones who are unable to realize what is the ennemy point of view.

I appreciate Lao Tsu, paraphrased. Seems to me that it might be possible to "unlearn" some of the cultural animosity with a few decades of a stable & peaceful democracy next door. But I don't think the rest of the planet should trust Iran to acquire Nuclear Capability only because WMD was used on them in the past.

It is my understanding that the Iranians are isolated in a wide variety of levels, as is Korea.

I think the long-term strategy here is to keep the threat of a nuclear holocaust suppressed long enough for the homogenizing influence of mass-media communications to moderate and temper these extreme states.

When the Iranian Morality Police are spending and inordinate amount of their resources prosecuting members of the Iranian middle and upper class for downloading porn on the Internet, they will be forced to re-evaluate their cultural (and national) priorities.

DonPanic · 2006-01-24 07:52:31

I really DON'T know the history of Iran, but am interested.
(..) But I don't think the rest of the planet should trust Iran to acquire Nuclear Capability only because WMD was used on them in the past.

LO
I don't know
I just can say that Froggies turned to Nuke power mainly because they didn't want to fear anymore conflict with Germany.

Im trying to know if the best has been done with Iran to avoid its greed for nuke power.

Is the euro troïka the best for talks with Iranians when Germany and France helped Saddam regime during Iran-Iraq war ? I can't say.
Israel helped Iran. Maybe, in spite of hard speeches at Israel, Israel should lead negiociations with Iran

bobunf · 2006-02-05 13:06:20

Commodore wrote: “While Isreal has (in theory) its own nukes, it doesn't have the hundreds required to completely destroy Iran.”

Israel began producing nuclear weapons in about 1968. According to published reports (Time magazine April 12, 1976 “The Plumbat Affair,” for instance) by the 1973 war they had about two dozen nuclear weapons deployed. That was 33 years ago; 33 years in which Israel has never felt anything but under extreme mortal threat from numerous, hostile and aggressive neighbors.

For about twenty years during that period the Israelis had a close working relationship with the apartheid government of South Africa and their nuclear program. Which suggests essentially unlimited access for the Israelis to raw materials necessary for nuclear weapons. The 1979 nuclear test detected by the US Vela satellite was probably a joint Israeli-South African operation.

Even if the Israeli rate of production never increased from 1973, the number of nuclear weapons in their possession today would approach two hundred. Several hundred seems more likely, except that one would wonder what Israel would do with several hundred nuclear weapons. After all, how many Arab cities are there?

The answer is that nuclear weapons don’t act as a deterrent unless one’s opponents know about them, know the doctrines for use, and really believe both. The Pollard case suggests that one opponent Israel intended to deter was the Soviet Union. Why else transfer some of Pollard’s results to the Soviet Union?

The Israeli nuclear doctrine ran something like this (“The Sampson Option” by Seymour Hersh 1990): Israel will respond with massive nuclear retaliation to a nuclear attack or a conventional invasion, which threatens Israel’s existence. Because of the difficulties of determining the precise identity of any perpetrators, and to encourage others to compel restraint on less rational actors, such retaliation will be made against all nearby states that Israel deems to partake in or to enable such an attack, including the Soviet Union.

In other words, “Never Again.”

The Israelis needed the bombs to deter the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, they’ve got plenty of bombs—hundreds--for the remaining hostile neighbors. From the Israeli point of view, Mutually Assured Destruction is very much alive.

Bob

Earthfirst · 2006-02-15 16:54:51

Iran so far away but I could not get away.

I think that Iran should be renamed Persia, then just like Alexander we could rule as a prince of Persia. Persia is a much more bad ass name too, at the Hot Gates the Inmortals over came the Spartins. 300 spartin vs 1,000,000 Persians, a battle that Mars him self would not of won. The Hot gates was turned red with the blood of the 300 Spartains and the 200,000 Inmortals that died that day.

As one looks upon the fallen man, bent over his busted shield, broken spear, in a pool of blood of his enemys. Truely he died a death of great glory, for I rather that he return home on reefs of glory then as a cowerd.
That is what a Spartin women would of said about the death of her son or husben. Spartin women were tougher than the men of other nations.

Persia was defeated by the Greeks, so I say let the Greeks at them. The greeks are still mad about things that happened thousand of years ago with Persia, and also Islam truks.

DonPanic · 2006-02-17 02:36:06

Persia is a much more bad ass name too, at the Hot Gates the Inmortals over came the Spartins. 300 spartin vs 1,000,000 Persians, a battle that Mars him self would not of won. The Hot gates was turned red with the blood of the 300 Spartains and the 200,000 Inmortals that died that day.

You mix legend with history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Immortals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon

Herodotus tells that Immortals were heavy infantry lead by Hydarnes that was kept constantly in strength of exactly 10,000 men — every killed, seriously wounded or sick member was immediately replaced with a new one. The regiment accepted only Median or Persian applicants.

Ancient greeks weren't able to count, think up to a million or to write such a number because they didn't even know what a zero was.
The Persians could never have the logistic and the fleet to land one million men anywhere

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-02-17 10:12:23

Ancient greeks weren't able to count, think up to a million or to write such a number because they didn't even know what a zero was.

Y'know, every time I read or hear a little "factoid" like the above, I am always a little bit irritated. While there may be SOME truth to the notion, I very much doubt that the Greeks had NO knowledge of a "zero". There has to be more to this.

How could you possibly NOT know what a zero is ?

Did young ancient greek men out on a date wind up in trouble with ancient restaurant owners because they ordered meals they couldn't pay for because they discovered after dinner that they had "zero" money, and didn't know it ? (How embarrassing...)

Were ugly ancient greek chicks automatically given a bonus point on a scale of 1 - 10 because they couldn't be rated a "0" ?

DonPanic · 2006-02-19 11:54:50

Marathon Battle 490 BC : Two centuries before Greece became a summit of science, philosophy and math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)

Did young ancient greek men out on a date wind up in trouble with ancient restaurant owners because they ordered meals they couldn't pay for because they discovered after dinner that they had "zero" money, and didn't know it ?

The point was : could "nothing" be a number as any number ?

Records show that the Ancient Greeks seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number: they asked themselves "how can 'nothing' be something?", leading to interesting philosophical and, by the Medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero and the vacuum. The paradoxes of Zeno of Elea depend in large part on the uncertain interpretation of zero. (The ancient Greeks even questioned that 1 was a number.)

Greek letter symbols for large number end with 10000, if they were used to count or calculate frequently higher numbers, they would have attributed a letter for 100000, one for a million, and so on.

Anyways, for a man in antics, and even in the middle ages, 10000 is a very very large number known only by the few that could count over a couple of their ten fingers

RIZ4ROCKET · 2006-02-19 15:07:06

The Greeks being

...unsure about the status of zero as a number...

does not necessarily mean the same thing as "... they didn't even know what a zero was. "

And having the "0" functioning as a place-holder is also different.

It's not personal, and yes I know it is net-picky, but right now I am focused on the lack of clarity of language (in my own personal life) and the erosive consequences of "fast-forwarding" through expressions that only "sound" like truth.

How this relates to me directly is the point, and has little to do with anyone else. (Unless they want it too...)

For a personal example, it bothers me that so much of my current judeo-christian culture is based on ideas and text that one must work at trying to apply to current circumstances.

This stems from another notion that I have heard; that 90% of ancient jews were illiterate. Means little or nothing now I suppose until one considers how the "wisdom" of much of what is now known as the Bible was disseminated throughout the jewish community.

Given the exclusive nature of the media and how much the average jewish "joe" would have to depend on the people relating the knowledge, wisdom, beliefs, etc... I find it difficult to find relevance of that culture's culture have on those that are alive now.

With the level of (internet-based) interpersonal connectivity, it seems that humanity should be capable of constructing a superior "blueprint" for future generations, without continuing to be impeded by the limitations of the one that got us this far.

Last week I wound up trying to read blogs of dissident Arabs in (I think it was) Syria, who were being prosecuting for committing some crime of expression. (Couldn't, because the links to the "english" versions appeared to have been broken. Perhaps this was an attempt at keeping english-speakers (Americans, given that we are dying for them) from reading about Islamic opposition to this week's version of this year's "Jihad".

Since when have well-educated and intelligent opponents to tyrannical regimes been able to communicate their opinions to the entire human race, in real time ?

Seems to me the whole direction of the human race ought to be dramatically improved by merely surviving long enough for the best "philosphy" (and people) to "win".

The means of achieving this objective must therefore lie in interpersonal communication skills. Identifying and underlining poor means of communication is like identifying the bad apple, before it spoils the entire barrel.

My own personal mission, I suppose.

Earthfirst · 2006-03-07 21:31:30

I fear the Greeks!

SpaceNut · 2006-03-18 12:46:21

Differing sides:
Georgian who joined U.S. Army in Iraq to avenge dead son is ready to go home

In the desert chill, on the lonely nighttime roads of Iraq, Joe Johnson looks out over his machine gun and thinks of Justin. The soldier's son who'd gone off to Iraq a month earlier, was suddenly dead at 22, killed by a roadside bomb planted in a Baghdad slum.

Protests under way on Iraq war anniversary; Demonstrations planned across globe three years after U.S.-led invasion

Thousands of anti-war protesters marched in Australia, Turkey and Asian countries at the start of global demonstrations Saturday, as campaigners marked the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq with a demand that coalition troops pull out.

060318_war_protests_hmed_8a.rp98x98.jpg

Earthfirst · 2006-04-18 14:25:49

What should be done with Iran, some people want to use tac nukes on them. That would slove the problem and give President Bush a lasting note in history.
Trueman nuke the nips, and Bush nuked Iran. Bombing Iran would be alot better than invading them with troops. Iraq takes up too many resources to control, I dont think that the US army could control Iran too. The army would need to have the draft, or give very high pay to get new people in the army.
My high school friend came back from Iraq in dec 05, he did not want to sign for another tour. He told me that the army was never given a chance to fully be an army in Iraq. Because of the media they could never break out the big guns and kill the emney in mass. He said that he did enjoy shooting his gun at feet people on the ground, but he never killed anybody. He also enjoyed beating up Iraq people that where thought to be bad, The people shooting at them or making bombs.
Over all the media and Political pressure prevents the army from doing the best the job they could. If they were given a free hand to do the job there way, and the media was censured not to report on the war. The army could have killed all the bad people in Iraq by now. The government does have the power to control the media and the right to free press. They did that in ww1, and I think that it should be done.

DonPanic · 2006-04-23 09:57:59

What should be done with Iran, some people want to use tac nukes on them. That would slove the problem and give President Bush a lasting note in history.

Like what ? like the guy who would have risen the wrath of millions human bombs voluteering to kill as many US citizens as they can ?
Can't you think another way than as a technobarbarian ?

Commodore · 2006-04-23 10:10:43

What should be done with Iran, some people want to use tac nukes on them. That would slove the problem and give President Bush a lasting note in history.
Like what ? like the guy who would have risen the wrath of millions human bombs voluteering to kill as many US citizens as they can ?
Can't you think another way than as a technobarbarian ?

As opposed to letting those million notechnobarbarians get nuclear weapons? I think not.

The population is unlikely to fight for the mullahs anyway.

Nukes arn't needed. If we really can't blast holes that deep, we can send in the 101st and 82nd.

Grypd · 2006-04-23 11:36:11

What should be done with Iran, some people want to use tac nukes on them. That would slove the problem and give President Bush a lasting note in history.
Like what ? like the guy who would have risen the wrath of millions human bombs voluteering to kill as many US citizens as they can ?
Can't you think another way than as a technobarbarian ?
As opposed to letting those million notechnobarbarians get nuclear weapons? I think not.
The population is unlikely to fight for the mullahs anyway.
Nukes arn't needed. If we really can't blast holes that deep, we can send in the 101st and 82nd.

What makes you think the Iranian population is not going to fight the invaders just like they fought the Iraqis when they invaded. The west is incredibly unpopular in Iran, we are hated. There are opposition groups to the current theocracy but the majority of them are even more anti western than the current regime.

One other thing to note is that the population of Iran is 3 times that of Iraq but also incidentally the country is a lot more massive.

Commodore · 2006-04-23 12:13:17

There are opposition groups to the current theocracy but the majority of them are even more anti western than the current regime.

Since when? 70% of the population is under 30 and has nothing against the west, and while proud Iranians, they are not going to fight a foe who lacks the ability to occupy the country, goes to great pains to avoid civilian destruction, and has ill will only towards the very same theocracy they do.

The tricky part is devoting enough resources to weaken the mullahs enough that when the people see their chance, its not a complete bloodbath. The last thing we want is a repeat of the 91 uprising against Saddam, were we stood by and watched while Saddam burtally put it down. On the other hand, we also want to avoid looking like were occupying the place.

Grypd · 2006-04-23 13:43:40

There are opposition groups to the current theocracy but the majority of them are even more anti western than the current regime.
Since when? 70% of the population is under 30 and has nothing against the west, and while proud Iranians, they are not going to fight a foe who lacks the ability to occupy the country, goes to great pains to avoid civilian destruction, and has ill will only towards the very same theocracy they do.

The same 70% who are raised on the stories of the 1st gulf war and are exposed to the Islamic jihadist talk in the mosques they go to pray in. The ones who are told the stories of when Iran was the greatest empire in the world and see that for there country to progress they need to advance and that means electricity. In this case with the conditions that are present in Iran the only means they see that might work is nuclear power. They have oil but it will run out and they want something for there future. There is a lot of support for nuclear power in Iran they want all the advantages that a regular source of electricity can give them. They have a lot of problems and they know that there reliance on oil for everything cannot last. The high unemployment rate in Iran is something that they want to change and with regular power they can start manufacturing goods with the low costs of labour and parts they could be the China of the middle east. So there goverment tells them and they listen.

The tricky part is devoting enough resources to weaken the mullahs enough that when the people see their chance, its not a complete bloodbath. The last thing we want is a repeat of the 91 uprising against Saddam, were we stood by and watched while Saddam burtally put it down. On the other hand, we also want to avoid looking like were occupying the place.

The people see there chance. What does that mean why should they rise up against there religion. You must remember that 95% of the population are islamic and as a population are very highly supportive of that. How do you intend to weaken the mullahs. You must also remember is that the current goverment was democratically elected.

Commodore · 2006-04-23 14:39:30

There are opposition groups to the current theocracy but the majority of them are even more anti western than the current regime.
Since when? 70% of the population is under 30 and has nothing against the west, and while proud Iranians, they are not going to fight a foe who lacks the ability to occupy the country, goes to great pains to avoid civilian destruction, and has ill will only towards the very same theocracy they do.
The same 70% who are raised on the stories of the 1st gulf war and are exposed to the Islamic jihadist talk in the mosques they go to pray in. The ones who are told the stories of when Iran was the greatest empire in the world and see that for there country to progress they need to advance and that means electricity. In this case with the conditions that are present in Iran the only means they see that might work is nuclear power. They have oil but it will run out and they want something for there future. There is a lot of support for nuclear power in Iran they want all the advantages that a regular source of electricity can give them. They have a lot of problems and they know that there reliance on oil for everything cannot last. The high unemployment rate in Iran is something that they want to change and with regular power they can start manufacturing goods with the low costs of labour and parts they could be the China of the middle east. So there goverment tells them and they listen.

The same ones that know that Iran will never be the China of the Middle East as long as long as the mullahs embark on an extremist and aggressive policy the makes Iran the pariah. The same ones who don't want to die in order to make Isreal a radioactive wasteland.

The tricky part is devoting enough resources to weaken the mullahs enough that when the people see their chance, its not a complete bloodbath. The last thing we want is a repeat of the 91 uprising against Saddam, were we stood by and watched while Saddam burtally put it down. On the other hand, we also want to avoid looking like were occupying the place.
The people see there chance. What does that mean why should they rise up against there religion. You must remember that 95% of the population are islamic and as a population are very highly supportive of that. How do you intend to weaken the mullahs. You must also remember is that the current goverment was democratically elected.

People who must tow the mullahs line just to get on the ballot are not democratically elected.

Grypd · 2006-04-24 07:31:22

The same ones that know that Iran will never be the China of the Middle East as long as long as the mullahs embark on an extremist and aggressive policy the makes Iran the pariah. The same ones who don't want to die in order to make Isreal a radioactive wasteland.

Youre speaking from a western point of view the averadge citizen of a middle east country really honestly believes that Israel is a foreign invader occupying an Islamic state. Most middle eastern countries have very strict laws surmounting to a ban on any trade or political dealings with Israel. Trying to change this has been viciously opposed by the people of these states. This includes our allies there Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The only Islamic state in the area that has free trade with Israel is Turkey and that is only down to the fact Turkey hates and is hated by all the other Arab states. Iran is a pariah state in the middle east but it always has been. Iran is not like the majority of its neighbours Sunni or even Arab.

Iran could make a very good manufacturing state it has unlike the majority of the rest of the gulf states an educated populace and also a low wage potential. What it lacks is the infrastructure needed to build a large maunfacturing base. And it also has a market in those other gulf states.

People who must tow the mullahs line just to get on the ballot are not democratically elected.

But this is your western views coming out again the fact is that the people of Iran honestly believe it is right for candidates to be vetted before they go ahead and of course it is right for the Mullahs to do it who else has the authority. Trying to change there views is going to be hard and the work of generations we have already seen in the case or Iraq where the spiritual side of the country has a very big say in how the country operates. All Middle east countries operate this way apart from Israel but that is one of the problems that Islam has with her.

Earthfirst · 2006-04-25 16:58:08

I don't think that Bush would use tac nukes on Iran. But having that option out in the media helps bush with the dipmo sid. If iran really thinks that bush would nuke them, then they would be more willing to give up their nuke power plans.

One good thing about the USA it has alot of power, lots of nukes to back up its demands. One of the must powerful statements a country can say "Are words are back by nukes, and we have used them before on people like you. "
Iran has to understand we have nuked before, and have no problem of doing it again.

Also I dont care what the islamic world think of the USA, they should fear us. Islamic invaders have controled the christen and jewish lands of the mid east. We are just liberating these lands from the Islamic invaders. Christs Kindom will get back its lands. Th lion will eat the camel.

You sea Christens also sea the Arabs as invaders in there homeland, and the jews too. So you arguement that jews invaded a Imlamic state are false, the jews were just moving back to their homeland Israel.

Commodore · 2006-04-25 18:23:56

Youre speaking from a western point of view the averadge citizen of a middle east country really honestly believes that Israel is a foreign invader occupying an Islamic state. Most middle eastern countries have very strict laws surmounting to a ban on any trade or political dealings with Israel. Trying to change this has been viciously opposed by the people of these states. This includes our allies there Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The only Islamic state in the area that has free trade with Israel is Turkey and that is only down to the fact Turkey hates and is hated by all the other Arab states. Iran is a pariah state in the middle east but it always has been. Iran is not like the majority of its neighbours Sunni or even Arab.

Well, unfortunately for the people offened by it, Isreal isn't going any were, whether anyone likes them or not. And the Isrealis are not going to sit around and wait to get nuked. Its quite clear how this will end either the regime in Iran changes to something less belligrent, we talk the Iranian down from the edge, or we or or Isreal will start dropping bombs. The clock is ticking, and we both know it will be better if we do it because even with 130,000 troops in Iraq, were better able to handle it than the Isrealis.

But this is your western views coming out again the fact is that the people of Iran honestly believe it is right for candidates to be vetted before they go ahead and of course it is right for the Mullahs to do it who else has the authority. Trying to change there views is going to be hard and the work of generations we have already seen in the case or Iraq where the spiritual side of the country has a very big say in how the country operates. All Middle east countries operate this way apart from Israel but that is one of the problems that Islam has with her.

If the people really believed it they would have elected him anyways. Given the difference between the nutjob in power now and the hopefull but powerless reformist that made up the last administration is night and day, I doubt that is the case.

Commodore · 2006-04-25 18:31:54

I don't think that Bush would use tac nukes on Iran. But having that option out in the media helps bush with the dipmo sid. If iran really thinks that bush would nuke them, then they would be more willing to give up their nuke power plans.
One good thing about the USA it has alot of power, lots of nukes to back up its demands. One of the must powerful statements a country can say "Are words are back by nukes, and we have used them before on people like you. "
Iran has to understand we have nuked before, and have no problem of doing it again.
Also I dont care what the islamic world think of the USA, they should fear us. Islamic invaders have controled the christen and jewish lands of the mid east. We are just liberating these lands from the Islamic invaders. Christs Kindom will get back its lands. Th lion will eat the camel.
You sea Christens also sea the Arabs as invaders in there homeland, and the jews too. So you arguement that jews invaded a Imlamic state are false, the jews were just moving back to their homeland Israel.

Well, the idea is that everyone can live and worship however they choose in the same geographic area.

However it's abundantly clear that some segments of Islam haven't moved past the groupthink stage were everyone within 50 feet of them has to do the exact same thing or else they and you going to hell and they are determined to turn you into a chunky bloodstain to speed up the process.

srmeaney · 2006-04-26 21:03:15

I was discernably shocked to hear that US soldiers injured in Iraq must pay back combat pay because they didnt complete their tour of Duty and have been given Bad Credit ratings until they pay off their debts?

You Evil Bastards!

Earthfirst · 2006-06-08 12:28:27

In Irag I here that the big terror leader was killed. Look like things are looking up in Irag!

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-06-16 05:39:25

In Irag I here that the big terror leader was killed. Look like things are looking up in Irag!

If only it were that easy...

The Senate Thursday sent President Bush an emergency spending bill meeting his funding requests for America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and aid to Gulf Coast hurricane victims.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2080330
The 98-1 vote on the $94.5 billion House-Senate compromise legislation gave much-needed funds to support U.S. troops overseas. Most of the money $66 billion goes to the Pentagon for military operations overseas.

The money was supposed to go to victims of two of the most devastating storms of recent times.
In fact well over $1bn ($1.6bn) of government relief for hurricanes Katrina and Rita went for scams of every hue, paying for anything from luxury holidays and pricey sports tickets to divorce lawyers and a sex-change operation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story … D=10386806
The catalogue of fraud was unveiled yesterday by the watchdog Government Accountability Office , in a report that is another damning indictment of Fema, the federal agency that handles disaster relief operations.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-01-23 10:37:47

Re: Political Potlock I

#52 2006-01-23 21:52:42

Re: Political Potlock I

#53 2006-01-24 07:52:31

Re: Political Potlock I

#54 2006-02-05 13:06:20

Re: Political Potlock I

#55 2006-02-15 16:54:51

Re: Political Potlock I

#56 2006-02-17 02:36:06

Re: Political Potlock I

#57 2006-02-17 10:12:23

Re: Political Potlock I

#58 2006-02-19 11:54:50

Re: Political Potlock I

#59 2006-02-19 15:07:06

Re: Political Potlock I

#60 2006-03-07 21:31:30

Re: Political Potlock I

#61 2006-03-18 12:46:21

Re: Political Potlock I

#62 2006-04-18 14:25:49

Re: Political Potlock I

#63 2006-04-23 09:57:59

Re: Political Potlock I

#64 2006-04-23 10:10:43

Re: Political Potlock I

#65 2006-04-23 11:36:11

Re: Political Potlock I

#66 2006-04-23 12:13:17

Re: Political Potlock I

#67 2006-04-23 13:43:40

Re: Political Potlock I

#68 2006-04-23 14:39:30

Re: Political Potlock I

#69 2006-04-24 07:31:22

Re: Political Potlock I

#70 2006-04-25 16:58:08

Re: Political Potlock I

#71 2006-04-25 18:23:56

Re: Political Potlock I

#72 2006-04-25 18:31:54

Re: Political Potlock I

#73 2006-04-26 21:03:15

Re: Political Potlock I

#74 2006-06-08 12:28:27

Re: Political Potlock I

#75 2006-06-16 05:39:25

Re: Political Potlock I

Board footer