Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Bill White · 2004-05-06 07:49:22

As a last comment, I find it hard to stomach some of the barely disguised glee of some commentators in the wake of the coalition's difficulties in Iraq. This utterly immature schadenfreude, at a time when we should all be pulling together instead of bitching about who was right and who was wrong, causes me far more despair than any setback on the path to freedom and democracy for Iraqi people.

Shaun I agree with this completely and if you recall, I was saying we needed MORE troops in Iraq many many months ago.

Alas, in light of recent events and photos much of the golden moment may have already passed.

= = =

As far as glee, one year ago Karl Rove was gleeful about how he was going to use success in Iraq to bury the Democrats in 2004.

On the morning before Zapatero won in Spain, Condi Rice appeared on Meet the Press and stated quite frankly that the United States government favored the election of his opponent. Then when Zapatero said things about Bush's re-election the Right got all hot and bothered.

What goes around comes around.

= = =

Radical Islam is a huge threat and we need a truce between the Left and Right to fight that threat. To often, IMHO, the Right sees truce as a cave-in to their agenda, justified by 9-11.

One small suggestion? The debacle with the appointment of US judges. Clinton's judges were filibustered by the GOP and now Bush's judges are filibustered by the Dems and we don't have enough federal judges.

A solution would be to let Bush name one judge and Daschle name one judge and the pair is voted up or down together.

= = =

Kinda like nursery school but that is where the war between the Dems and GOP has left us. And voting judges pair by pair would at least begin to bridge the gaps between Left and Right.

PS - - Christopher Hitchens said that liberals (and Europeans) fear John Ashcroft more than bin Laden. Probably true. And the Right fears/hates Hillary Clinton more than bin Laden.

Thats the problem.

Both sides need to know the other won't take advantage of 9-11 and the War on Terror for partisan gain.

Palomar · 2004-05-06 08:58:25

I don't think I'd make a very good politician because, when I put my views here, I seem occasionally to cause consternation among people I have a high regard for. This makes me regret, at times, that I ever bother to get involved in political threads at all.

*Consternation isn't necessarily "a bad thing." Everyone can use a good "shaking" every now and then.

Clinton went to bat for Bush last year (?...time goes so fast), supporting Bush's opinions about Iraq. I don't recall the specifics. Anyway, everyone was surprised Clinton made that move/gesture.

Shaun, your opinions have made me rethink the reasons why I may vote for Kerry; initially, yes, I was going knee-jerk reaction...anything to get Bush out of office. Now I'm reconsidering what my vote will be more seriously, the why's and etc.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 09:11:07

We'd benefit if the Right and Left could genuinely work together in this war, but it just isn't going to happen. We're fighting another war at home, a cultural and idealogical one. Both sides believe, and not without some justification, that the other will more certainly destroy all that they hold dear than the terrorists. The Right would very much like to see the Left shrivel up into insignificance, keep a few liberals in the Universities as a reminder, but never let them run anything. The Left, make no mistake about it, wants to be the sole voice in the nation. They exhibit a Nazi-like rage while comparing the Right with Nazis. It would be funny if I didn't have to live in the middle of it.

The Left and Right have radically different visions of America. The Right wants a return to the traditional, self-reliant America where the poor have to rely on the charity of friends, family and churches. Where the lazy and stupid fail.

The Left wants to become ever more socialist and homogenized. Yes, homogenized. They want all kinds of different colored liberals running around.

The two cannot peacefully co-exist. In war one must often fight on more than one front.

clark · 2004-05-06 09:18:18

But I am a little suspicious of the contrived naivety of some people here, who have climbed up on a soapbox of righteous indignation to proclaim they've been lied to by President Bush.

Perhaps it's different where you come from, but I always assumed calling a duck a duck was rather universal.

The last time America was lied to by their leaders, as a means to enegage in war, which was presented as fufilling the requirements of our way of life, was the Gulf of Tonkin.

50,000 dead GI's later, we left with "honor".

The reason I call for the removal of Bush is not becuase I do not agree with his choices. I believe any other person sitting behind that desk would make the same choices along similar lines, as in, invading Afghanistan, and perhaps invading Iraq.

Yet while most can see a clear rationale for routing the Taliban, the rationale behind Iraq is more murky. It always has been. What the defining reason though was that America needed to act, and it needed to act now. Why? Becuase Iraq presented a clear and present danger. They had weapons they shouldn't have, and that we didn't want them to have. For this single reason, American were willing to follow their leader in the face of some rather overwhelming opposition.

We continue to follow our leader in the face of overwhelming opposition, yet now, the main reason for our actions, and by that I do mean how the run up to the war was handled, is found to be false.

So what's a Yankee to do? Make lemondade out of the lemons. Do some good, make the world a better place in the dark hole over there.

If that's what we need to do, we don't need Bush anymore. And this is but the international piece- the foreign policy. America is changing, and I for one don't want to see what four more years of Bush does to this country. A President who came in as a "uniter" has only helped to polarize this nation. A compassionate conservative who defunded his own educational programs, made EPA rollback saftey levels on things like the amount of mercury and lead in the drinking water, and cut state funding.

clark · 2004-05-06 09:19:47

The Left and Right have radically different visions of America. The Right wants a return to the traditional, self-reliant America where the poor have to rely on the charity of friends, family and churches. Where the lazy and stupid fail.

You're either with us, or against us. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 09:31:19

If that's what we need to do, we don't need Bush anymore.

Fair enough. But if we accept what we must do, why intentionally turn it over to someone who didn't want to do it in the first place, would rather not do it now, and has a horde of others clamoring for him to stop doing it?

A President who came in as a "uniter" has only helped to polarize this nation. A compassionate conservative who defunded his own educational programs, made EPA rollback saftey levels on things like the amount of mercury and lead in the drinking water, and cut state funding.

This is a good example. Bush cut back the rate of growth of a program he himself initiated, though Ted Kennedy wrote substantial portions of the bill. A rollback of the biggest increase in education spending in modern history. The EPA standards were not reduced, they were returned to the same standards they've always been but jacked up higher by the previous Administrtion for the sole purpose of getting some negative press on Bush when he restored them. And within the ideology of the Right, what business does the Federal government have funding states? It's supposed to be the other way around, constitutionally speaking.

Palomar · 2004-05-06 09:40:27

We'd benefit if the Right and Left could genuinely work together in this war, but it just isn't going to happen. We're fighting another war at home, a cultural and idealogical one. Both sides believe, and not without some justification, that the other will more certainly destroy all that they hold dear than the terrorists. The Right would very much like to see the Left shrivel up into insignificance, keep a few liberals in the Universities as a reminder, but never let them run anything. The Left, make no mistake about it, wants to be the sole voice in the nation. They exhibit a Nazi-like rage while comparing the Right with Nazis. It would be funny if I didn't have to live in the middle of it.

*Exactly.

Watching hard-core lefties and righties going at it reminds me of teenagers fighting with wannabe parents.

It's especially puzzling for me, as I can often (I think) see the good points in both sides. I really don't understand extremism in politics.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-06 09:45:51

But if we accept what we must do, why intentionally turn it over to someone who didn't want to do it in the first place, would rather not do it now, and has a horde of others clamoring for him to stop doing it?

Look man, it's not a good situation. Failure of the two party system. I have no reason to love or hate Kerry, I'll admit that. But I think anybody we put in office will still make the same kind of decisions, mainly becuase we've gone to far now to turn back. Besides, the Congress is still a Republican majority. We swing more wildly when there are less checks and balances, which we have when one or the other party controls Congress and the White House.

Bush cut back the rate of growth of a program he himself initiated, though Ted Kennedy wrote substantial portions of the bill. A rollback of the biggest increase in education spending in modern history.

Followed up with some of the most stringent testing requirements on schools without the funding to implement the decree's from on high. So the schools end up having to cut back on actual teaching so they can administer tests to show washington that they meet the federal teaching standards.

The EPA standards were not reduced, they were returned to the same standards they've always been but jacked up higher by the previous Administrtion for the sole purpose of getting some negative press on Bush when he restored them.

Okay Cobra, you have a choice between two glasses of water, one has more lead and mercury, the other has less. Which one would you like your children or pregnant wife to drink?

This isn't flouride. This is stuff that in very small quantities cause brain damage and other nasty stuff to small children and the environment.

Of course we could just say Bush is encouraging the bottled water industry, nothing like privatizing the drinking well.

And within the ideology of the Right, what business does the Federal government have funding states?

What business does the Federal government have in telling the State it can't use medicinal marijuna when an overwhelming majority of the State residents approve such measures? How about Euthanisia? Immigration control? Educational standards? Environmental regulations (like the Federal government saying California's clean air requirements exceeded federal requirements, so ours have to go)?

Simple answer says it ain't 250 years ago and you can't have it both ways.

Bill White · 2004-05-06 10:02:38

The Left and Right have radically different visions of America. The Right wants a return to the traditional, self-reliant America where the poor have to rely on the charity of friends, family and churches. Where the lazy and stupid fail.
You're either with us, or against us. :laugh:

I deleted my last post. What I should have said instead.

America needs a marriage counselor. The cost of divorce is unacceptably high.

clark · 2004-05-06 10:05:57

Oh Canada, Oh Canada... :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 10:42:41

Quote
Bush cut back the rate of growth of a program he himself initiated, though Ted Kennedy wrote substantial portions of the bill. A rollback of the biggest increase in education spending in modern history.

Followed up with some of the most stringent testing requirements on schools without the funding to implement the decree's from on high. So the schools end up having to cut back on actual teaching so they can administer tests to show washington that they meet the federal teaching standards.

And what happens if they don't comply with the Federal requirements? Good lord, they lose Federal funding. The horror. No education gestapo comes in the middle of the night, no one gets thrown out on the street. The US Department of Education is a powerless entity. Federal education regs don't matter unless a state puts itself in a position to need the Federal bribe.

Okay Cobra, you have a choice between two glasses of water, one has more lead and mercury, the other has less. Which one would you like your children or pregnant wife to drink?

We've all been drinking the same water our entire lives, and now all of sudden because some numbers got juggled on a sheet of paper it's a swarming mass of toxic sludge? Nothing real has changed.

Quote
And within the ideology of the Right, what business does the Federal government have funding states?

What business does the Federal government have in telling the State it can't use medicinal marijuna when an overwhelming majority of the State residents approve such measures? How about Euthanisia? Immigration control? Educational standards? Environmental regulations (like the Federal government saying California's clean air requirements exceeded federal requirements, so ours have to go)?
Simple answer says it ain't 250 years ago and you can't have it both ways.

When we get down to the Constitutional questions, the Federal government has no business getting involved in any of these things. The Right doesn't always adhere to the letter of its limited government ideals any more than the Left holds to its "tolerance" ideals. Both extremes may be workable, but not both together. That's the point and the source of the division.

I didn't make it this way and I don't like it, but there it is. That's what we've got on the homefront.

clark · 2004-05-06 10:52:31

Federal education regs don't matter unless a state puts itself in a position to need the Federal bribe.

This is a little after the fact, no? All states are in the position of needing to suck from the federal teet. How the hell do you think they were able to get compliance with federal guidelines on minimum age drinking? Make it 21 or you lose your federal highway construction grants. That means jobs.

The federal government gets the lions share of the public's taxes, and the States need to comply with federal guidelines to get their share, and to avoid the legal battles that follow with non-compliance.

We've all been drinking the same water our entire lives, and now all of sudden because some numbers got juggled on a sheet of paper it's a swarming mass of toxic sludge? Nothing real has changed.

Okay, I'm for cleaner drinking water anyway. [shrug] But hey, the Romans drank from lead pipes, why shouldn't we.

I didn't make it this way and I don't like it, but there it is. That's what we've got on the homefront.

I respect the difference of opinions here. But I'm still right.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 11:09:49

This is a little after the fact, no? All states are in the position of needing to suck from the federal teet...

The states could ween themselves off it with careful budgeting. In some cases they are so far in the hole they can't realistically do it, but in many other cases they simply choose not to. Choice and consequences, another big concept to the Right...

The federal government gets the lions share of the public's taxes, and the States need to comply with federal guidelines to get their share, and to avoid the legal battles that follow with non-compliance.

Direct Federal taxation of the public is unconstitutional. See how this works, they're bribing the states with money taken from their citizens.

Okay, I'm for cleaner drinking water anyway. [shrug] But hey, the Romans drank from lead pipes, why shouldn't we.

Okay, then why accept any impurities in our water? I demand that the standards allow nothing but two Hydrogen atoms for every Oxygen! If so much as a stray electron shows up there's gonna be Hell to pay!

Or we can be realistic. The drinking water is fine and has been for years. If we can make it even better without seriuosly disrupting matters, fine. But let's not pretend that it's gotten worse when it hasn't.

I respect the difference of opinions here. But I'm still right.

Prove it.

clark · 2004-05-06 11:16:56

Okay, then why accept any impurities in our water? I demand that the standards allow nothing but two Hydrogen atoms for every Oxygen! If so much as a stray electron shows up there's gonna be Hell to pay!
Or we can be realistic. The drinking water is fine and has been for years. If we can make it even better without seriuosly disrupting matters, fine. But let's not pretend that it's gotten worse when it hasn't.

More power to you. I agree, and things seemed to be fine by making the water a little safer. Instead, what i see is pandering to big business so they can pollute a little bit more and make a larger profit... at the public's exspense.

The states could ween themselves off it with careful budgeting.

Yeah, by forgoing neccessary social service therby causing greater social instability and thereby making the streets less safe and therby making it neccessary to walk around with guns in our coat pockets... oh wait, I see where you're coming from now.

Direct Federal taxation of the public is unconstitutional. See how this works, they're bribing the states with money taken from their citizens.

Yet we pay our taxes anyway. Go figure.

As for proving it... well, all i have is common sense and reason. I admit, that dosen't go as far as it used to these days.

Bill White · 2004-05-06 11:35:03

We can go about this from a property rights angle as well.

If an American factory dumps sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and acid rain eats car paint in Toronto or Buffalo, then sue.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 11:37:43

More power to you. I agree, and things seemed to be fine by making the water a little safer.

Except no one actually tried to do it, so we don't really know. It's easy to say we can up the standards, but then what happens when people across the country start fuming that their water bills have gone up? Nothing is free.

Quote
The states could ween themselves off it with careful budgeting.

Yeah, by forgoing neccessary social service therby causing greater social instability and thereby making the streets less safe and therby making it neccessary to walk around with guns in our coat pockets... oh wait, I see where you're coming from now.

Do social services lead to greater social stability? Judging by the last century, it could be argued that they themselves cause greater instability. People can do amazing things when they have to.

Another big dividing issue. The Right sees people as responsible and capable beings who succeed or fail based on their own merits, and they have to live with it. The Left tends to see them as poor stupid wretches that need to be taken care of.

As for proving it... well, all i have is common sense and reason. I admit, that dosen't go as far as it used to these days.

Reason is why we find a fair amount of common ground here. "Common sense," now that is all too often a phrase used to describe whatever the speaker happens to believe, reason aside. If I had a dollar for every utterly foolish "common sense" idea I've heard I'd be buying countries.

And why do you pay your Federal taxes? Is it because you're generous and want to help others... or are you afraid that some guys with guns will come and lock you up and take your property?

Taxes based on "voluntary distraint" indeed.

Bill White · 2004-05-06 11:51:40

This centrist thinks that the powerful have too often rigged the game.

A plague on all welfare queens, whether on Skid Row or Penthouse Row!

= = =

Call me brainwashed, but I have always liked this guy, even when he is overly simplistic:

Tom Friedman from today's NY Times:

We are in danger of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world. I have never known a time in my life when America and its president were more hated around the world than today. I was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale of the sitcom "Friends" right now. They're the only friends we have, and even they're leaving.
This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster for us all.
That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — today, not tomorrow or next month, today. What happened in Abu Ghraib prison was, at best, a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command under Mr. Rumsfeld's authority, or, at worst, part of a deliberate policy somewhere in the military-intelligence command of sexually humiliating prisoners to soften them up for interrogation, a policy that ran amok.
Either way, the secretary of defense is ultimately responsible, and if we are going to rebuild our credibility as instruments of humanitarian values, the rule of law and democratization, in Iraq or elsewhere, Mr. Bush must hold his own defense secretary accountable. Words matter, but deeds matter more. If the Pentagon leadership ran any U.S. company with the kind of abysmal planning in this war, it would have been fired by shareholders months ago.
I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual-humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under Saddam — without the Arab League or Al Jazeera ever saying a word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I want my country to behave better — not only because it is America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the credibility of our ideas.
We were hit on 9/11 by people who believed hateful ideas — ideas too often endorsed by some of their own spiritual leaders and educators back home. We cannot win a war of ideas against such people by ourselves. Only Arabs and Muslims can. What we could do — and this was the only legitimate rationale for this war — was try to help Iraqis create a progressive context in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world where that war of ideas could be fought out.
But it is hard to partner with someone when you become so radioactive no one wants to stand next to you. We have to restore some sense of partnership with the world if we are going to successfully partner with Iraqis.
Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on-steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to say he will be guided by the U.N. in forming the new caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and oversee elections — and then leave when appropriate. And he needs to urge them all to join in.
Let's not lose sight of something — as bad as things look in Iraq, it is not yet lost, for one big reason: America's aspirations for Iraq and those of the Iraqi silent majority, particularly Shiites and Kurds, are still aligned. We both want Iraqi self-rule and then free elections. That overlap of interests, however clouded, can still salvage something decent from this war — if the Bush team can finally screw up the courage to admit its failures and dramatically change course.
Yes, the hour is late, but as long as there's a glimmer of hope that this Bush team will do the right thing, we must insist on it, because America's role in the world is too precious — to America and to the rest of the world — to be squandered like this.

Palomar · 2004-05-06 13:18:17

*This thread moves along fast. Anyway, I've been keeping an eye on the flap surrounding Rumsfeld. First I'm hearing he may be called to resign, now I'm hearing Bush is supporting him (even though allegedly Bush has been supremely p.o.'d by Rummy allegedly keeping the Iraqi prison pics from him).

I'm wondering how that particular will turn out. Any ideas?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 13:55:46

Re. Friedman's column. After reading it I am of the opinion that is one part "good call" to five parts horse dung. The UN has no credibility left, crawling back to them would serve only two ends. It would destroy our credibilty as well, and it would send a signal to the terrorists that we are weak. Sometimes you piss people off when you do the right thing. Time will tell.

As for Rumsfeld being forced to resign, this is pure politics. Hell, if Rumsfeld can be held directly responsible for a breakdown of proper military conduct on the front then why stop there. Following that reasoning, I have a proposition.

Governments exist for two core purposes, to enforce property rights and to protect their citizens. The first has been abused for a long time now and we can protect our own stuff better than they can anyway, so we're down to "protect citizens." Several government officials, appointed by the Administration and otherwise, have plainly stated that there will be another terrorist attack, they can't be everywhere all the time. They have conceded that they can't protect us.

So let's just fire the whole lot of them! We won't be invading anyone, there won't even be a US military, the libs should love this! And since we won't be out bullying the world, the terrorists couldn't possibly still want to kill us.

Seriously, I'm up for it. Let's just wipe the slate clean and start again.

Oh, right. I forgot this is about Bush. Nevermind. :;):

Bill White · 2004-05-06 15:08:31

Its about the Geneva Convention and the exceptions and loopholes encouraged by Rumsfeld.

Its about the reports about the prison that have been sitting unread since March.

Its about gaining credibility in the Islamic world.

We have two choices, gain credibility in the Islamic world, or kill them all.

= = =

Keeping Rumsfeld is better for Kerry becasue it will be a sore point between now and November. Bush fires Rumsfeld and those photos can no longer hurt Bush.

If Bush keeps Rumsfeld he will be continually attacked as being soft on sexual abuse and rape rooms, but only if done by Americans.

The American in me says "fire Rumsfeld" and the Democrat in me says: "Sure, keep him until November, no problem."

= = =

In politics the festering wound is always worse than the clean break.

Fire Rumsfeld, and look through the whole chain of command, and six weeks from now Bush is a hero for being willing to clean his own house.

If those enlisted reservists are made scapegoats for CIA policy, military morale will go into the crapper.

= = =

Oh yeah, I forgot, Bush cannot ever admit he made a mistake. :;):

Bill White · 2004-05-06 15:44:03

Tom Friedman's advice is based on King Henry and Beckett, IMHO, yet Bush probably lacks the internal flexibility to pull it off.

By the way, Cobra, if Kerry does win, he can kiss up to the Euro-weenies for 4 years then the next Republican President can go postal again.

A schizo-variant of good cop/bad cop with only one cop.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-06 16:18:18

Its about the Geneva Convention and the exceptions and loopholes encouraged by Rumsfeld.
Its about the reports about the prison that have been sitting unread since March.
Its about gaining credibility in the Islamic world.
We have two choices, gain credibility in the Islamic world, or kill them all.

The incident has happened, the damage is done. Falling all over ourselves to make it better will not give us credibility in the Muslim world. It will be seen as a sign of weakness. Those who support us will get real nervous about our resolve and those who oppose us will be greatly encouraged.

Keeping Rumsfeld is better for Kerry becasue it will be a sore point between now and November. Bush fires Rumsfeld and those photos can no longer hurt Bush.

Whether Rumsfeld is fired or not won't matter. John Kerry doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the Democrat candidate is John Kerry, Howard Dean or Snuffaluffagus, This election is a referendum on George W. Bush. About half the people like what he's doing and won't risk a Democrat, the other half won't abide another four years of Bush regardless. Put David Duke on the Democrat ticket and many will vote for him just because he isn't George Bush. I don't think I'm exaggerating either.

Canning Rumsfeld does Bush no good, and it probably does America no good.

By the way, Cobra, if Kerry does win, he can kiss up to the Euro-weenies for 4 years then the next Republican President can go postal again.

So you're already sure he'd be a one-termer.

Bill White · 2004-05-06 16:25:17

Kerry is a dolt.

Mr "I don't own an SUV?" I don't own an SUV I just ride in my wife's. D'oh!

But at least he isn't on a crusade and probably knows he is a dolt.

Bush? People who never make mistakes frighten me.

Edit: If you don't fire Rumsfeld, do we throw al Jazeera out of Iraq?

Bill White · 2004-05-06 16:30:20

Frankly, I believe that if Bush wins in 2004, Hillary may well be a lock in 2008.

If Kerry wins, maybe the GOP gets 2008 - 2016 all locked up because Kerry is such a dolt.

Who will run against Hillary in 2008 if Bush wins in 2004?

Jeb? He ain't got his brother's style. Frist? he won't appeal to the evangelicals like W does.

Palomar · 2004-05-06 19:07:09

It doesn't matter if the Democrat candidate is John Kerry, Howard Dean or Snuffaluffagus,

*Lol...oh god... :laugh:

Do you mean Mr. Snuffalupagus??

Mr. Snuffalupagus for President! You are too much! :laugh:

--Cindy

P.S.: Believe it or not, that show did come to mind for some unknown reason a few hours ago, after I'd signed off for the day and before reading this. Weird coincidence.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-05-06 07:49:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#127 2004-05-06 08:58:25

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#128 2004-05-06 09:11:07

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#129 2004-05-06 09:18:18

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#130 2004-05-06 09:19:47

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#131 2004-05-06 09:31:19

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#132 2004-05-06 09:40:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#133 2004-05-06 09:45:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#134 2004-05-06 10:02:38

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#135 2004-05-06 10:05:57

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#136 2004-05-06 10:42:41

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#137 2004-05-06 10:52:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#138 2004-05-06 11:09:49

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#139 2004-05-06 11:16:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#140 2004-05-06 11:35:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#141 2004-05-06 11:37:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#142 2004-05-06 11:51:40

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#143 2004-05-06 13:18:17

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#144 2004-05-06 13:55:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#145 2004-05-06 15:08:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#146 2004-05-06 15:44:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#147 2004-05-06 16:18:18

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#148 2004-05-06 16:25:17

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#149 2004-05-06 16:30:20

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#150 2004-05-06 19:07:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Board footer

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2