War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-22 17:21:11

But the next one is to see who is to dominate the world buisness or goverments

So we're doomed then.

But back to the initial question, here's another example worth pondering. Was the American Revolution justified or necessary?

Tread carefully, for any answer is rife with pitfalls.

John Creighton · 2004-09-22 17:31:10

Was the American Revolution justified or necessary?

Well there isn't alot of choices.

Grypd · 2004-09-22 18:29:53

It depends on whose point of view that answers the question

The American revolution was not simply fought between the American colonists and the British colonial forces. Many colonists joined up to fight on the British side too as they believed there loyalty was to the home nation. The factors that drove the actual revolution are as complex as they come and there is a lot of history before the actual revolution that bares relevance. Did the colonies actually have to Rebel, well maybe not. We can use the example of the colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand as examples of the progression of colonies to independent states. But we also have to remember to the general American colonist there was nothing of this sort of freedom on the horizon only hindsight gives us this. Did the the rather bland arrogance of the British goverment at the time force the issue, maybe.

What is certain is that using the British side as an example that they could have stopped the revolution reasonably easy before it started by simply listening to the colonists. If they had invested an interest into the colonies rather than considering them as a place to get cheap tobbacco and to get rid of unwanted criminals.
From the American side there had always been a stirring of nationhood and antiauthority and this had been semi pushed by some of the people who formed the american colonies upper segments and its learned class. When the revolution did start it was hardly going to stop. Even if the British had won the fact that there had been the attempt at independence was going to ensure that there was a speedy move from being a colony to a nation on its own.

so for your answer CobraCommander I give you yes and No and Yes and No. And I get to smile as im truly not fence sitting either.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-22 21:27:56

The American Revolution was justified from the perspective that nothing else seemed to get through the thick skulls of the then leaders of Britain. If a sudden rush of brains had hit London during the period in question, things would be very different in the world.

Two possibilities emerge:

1) The colonies are granted some sort of 'home rule' as an extention of London's previous "benign neglect", and grow to resemble something like Anzacs on steroids internationally but virtually unchanged at home (save for aristocratic nobility nonsense). Such a semi-independent America would be a tremendous military boon to the British Empire, although it would probably greatly increase adventurism because London might get caught up in the occasional Western Hemisphere war. Forget the claims of 'yankee imperialism' now; a semi-independent US would probably devour the whole Carribean and Central America for King/Queen and Country.

2) The colonists are allowed to elect their own PMs. This would greatly change how the colonists develop, because London will have a very strong voice at first in their domestic policies, as New York would be as subject to Parliament in London as Birmingham. However, the sheer size of the US probably means it will surpass England proper eventually... possibly so gradually that it's almost unnoticed. Such a 'United Kingdom' would probably squash any chance of World Wars like ours from developing, because it would be such a hideously imbalancing nation. On the other hand, it would probably cause a lot of the anti-Americanism we see nowadays to be developed earlier and wear an Anti-British face, as the King of the Hill is always the biggest target.

Right now, I'm picturing TR leading the fight against the Boers. Hmmm....

Gennaro · 2004-09-23 00:21:34

Considering the geopolitical juggling prevalent on this board, exemplified for instance by the debate about Patton's proposition, I'd like to know why people here think the war against Germany was neccesary. On another level, the war against the European phenomeon of Fascism as such (two different questions, actually).

I'm sure there would be several answers to these questions, but I'd like to know what you guys think and the way you reason.

Grypd · 2004-09-23 04:23:18

The war against Nazi germany was as justified as they can be. Hitler was the one who actually started the war by invading poland (in concert with Russia) but the first shots where fired by the Germans. Germany was a power hungry land grabbing empire that did not really respect that countries wished to remain neutral. As an example as Germany needed the resources it invaded neutral Norway. This action could not even be called revenge as Norway had not played any part in the first world war.

Itlay was a fascist state they coined the phrase so its true, But Italy chose to join the War on Germanys side so making it a belligerent, No country had declared War on it. But it still came in attacking France then Greece. There where still fascist countries left after the war if by fascist you mean ultra right wing. The most interesting being Spain under Franco. Franco and his side during there civil War had recieved a lot of support from both Mussolini and Hitler. It remained neutral to a certain degree, and so long after the second world war Franco remained in power.

So the answer As it was the so called fascist states of Italy and Germany that started the war then the war was justified. It was one of the few wars where you could truly say you where defending yourself. (incidentally the Roman Empire always stated it never started wars it was only defending itself, and look at the empire it got out of conquest)

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-23 05:48:22

so for your answer CobraCommander I give you yes and No and Yes and No. And I get to smile as im truly not fence sitting either.

A wise answer, given the complexities.

I'd like to know why people here think the war against Germany was neccesary. On another level, the war against the European phenomeon of Fascism as such (two different questions, actually).

Again, the answer depends greatly on one's perspective, so I'll attempt to answer from a purely practical American viewpoint. The war against Fascist Italy was unnecessary from this viewpoint on its own, but was engaged in as part of the greater war against Germany due to entanglements Italy had mired itself in, hitching it's prospects to the 'Thousand Year Reich.' Fascism of the Italian variety was neither a threat to the United States nor was it the monstrously oppressive atrocity machine people tend to think of when they hear the word "fascism."

So it's really about whether the war against Germany was justified. The real reason we engaged in that war was not out of some crusade for justice or even that a few of our ships bound for England were sent to the bottom of the ocean. We were attacked by Japan, we went to war with Japan, Germany fulfilled its treaty obligations to its ally and declared war on us. We then had something of a choice of dealing with Germany on a peripheral level, indirectly perhaps through aid to Britain, or engaging them directly as they did not have the capability to hit us directly and had other matters to attend to. We chose the direct approach, partly because Germany clearly had potential to become a major threat to America in the future and partly because FDR had this obsession with stomping Nazism, even if it meant getting real cozy with Stalin.

The war with Italy was just icing on the Nazi cake. The war with Germany was, I would argue justified on many levels, but if not avoidable at least deferable. The ideal solution would have been to let Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union pummel each other into dust, then pick up the pieces afterwards, but we chose another course.

There where still fascist countries left after the war if by fascist you mean ultra right wing. The most interesting being Spain under Franco.

Just an aside, fascism does not mean simply any right-wing authoritarian system. Franco was a conservative military dictator, but he was not a fascist.

Grypd · 2004-09-23 18:04:02

Just an aside, fascism does not mean simply any right-wing authoritarian system. Franco was a conservative military dictator, but he was not a fascist.

The Spanish civil war could easily have been said to have been an example of both ultra left wing and ultra right wing of the political spectrum having its own civil war. Truly only the Italian state under Mussoloini could be fascist they described themselves as such and it was the name of his party. But if we use this Germany which was also Ultra right wing can not be called fascist they called themselves a national socialist party. In there deluded and drug induced mind sets they actually thought they where doing good for the commen German. So we use the term fascist to refer to all very right wing states and as such Germany falls in this description. But so does spain under Franco and guite a few other states that could be mentioned. Franco was a military dictator but he was also far right wing as most such military dictatorships are and using the term loosely his state could be called fascist.

So CobraCommander I have to ask was the american war of independence justified, and you are not to use just the colonists point of view.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-23 19:11:34

So we use the term fascist to refer to all very right wing states and as such Germany falls in this description. But so does spain under Franco and guite a few other states that could be mentioned. Franco was a military dictator but he was also far right wing as most such military dictatorships are and using the term loosely his state could be called fascist.

But it's using the term incorrectly. It's like if I were to say that all left-of-center parties are communist. Fascism isn't just authoritarian government, it's a philosophical and political structure in its own right. Fascism is an inherently radical idealogy, progressive in a very real sense.

Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party was of course the origin of the term, though the Italian state was never fully fascist in the sense we understand the term today. The King still had final say, for example. Nazi Germany can be considered "fascist" in a broad and generic sense, though National Socialism was an especially virulent and destructive strain. As far as fascist governments go, that's about it. This does not include the German puppet governments, either in Vichy or in Eastern Europe because they were not fascist, not revolutionary. A fascist puppet government is an oxymoron, among other lacking factors.

As for Fascist parties, there was Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, a handful of Nazi-type fascist groups in the East (Hungary's 'Arrow Cross' comes to mind), the Falange in Spain, who were one of the factions aligned with Franco, and that's about it.

It can be debated that Chiang Kai Shek was on the cusp of true fascism, but that's a tangent we don't need to follow.

So in short, after WWII there were no fascist governments left on this planet. The term was simply usurped by the Left to disparage anyone to the right of them.

So CobraCommander I have to ask was the american war of independence justified, and you are not to use just the colonists point of view.

Whether or not a war is justified depends largely on one's point of view. For the colonists it's open for debate, though if we answer an emphatic 'yes' it has some implications for the present day. If we answer no, we then must ask what would it take for it to be justified, where is that line?

For the British it's equally cloudy. Is fighting to preserve an Empire justification enough? If not, our own Civil War is rife with problems, aside from the legal thorns. Is maintaining trade routes and commerce reason enough? If so, then even if Iraq is about oil it's justified. Yet if we say the British were not justified in fighting to hold their colonies we have to ask where their duty to their colonists ends? Is it right for a sovereign nation to abandon its citizens to the rule of any band of armed thugs that can fight off a few regiments? Not to mention that the British Empire has had a profound effect on our world and is arguably responsible, directly and otherwise, for much of what is good and noble in the world today. The United States of America and Great Britain have on several occasions liberated oppressed peoples throughout the world. Australia has done her part as well, Canada's people are free largely because of their heritage. Look at the sorry state of most of France's former colonies, for example. ??? Were the British less quick to fight and less imperialistic the world could well be a darker place today.

??? I mean that in a metaphorical sense.

In essence I'm essentially going to give the same answer you did, Grypd. The Colonials were justified in fighting for independence though they could have avoided the war, and the English were justified in fighting to hold their colonies even though it was mainly financial concerns and pride driving it on.

Yes and no, yes, no. Yes.

Gennaro · 2004-09-23 22:04:34

Thank you for your replies. Well, I believe they are rather reasonable. The reason I asked in the first place is you sometimes get a feeling in these debates no one ever cares about sovereignity of nations or countries as such, just about how the world should be "fixed", no matter the scale or suffering imposed and typically provided the United States comes out on top.
So it almost begs the question why you should be particularly agitated by the policies of, for example, the third reich at all?

Some specific comments:

The war against Nazi germany was as justified as they can be. Hitler was the one who actually started the war by invading poland (in concert with Russia) but the first shots where fired by the Germans.

Well, yes it's correct. The Germans were put against an ultimatum they didn't react on, so at least one could say they didn't care at the time whether the Allies would launch a world war upon them or not.

Germany was a power hungry land grabbing empire that did not really respect that countries wished to remain neutral. As an example as Germany needed the resources it invaded neutral Norway. This action could not even be called revenge as Norway had not played any part in the first world war.

Okay, as far as I can see, Germany was a land grabbing country in relation to areas in central Europe they thought should be part of the Greater German Reich. Primarily this means areas part of the Second Empire and Austria-Hungary up till 1918, realising at last, the greater German solution, originally unopted for by Bismarck as one country for all Germans. The new states formed after Versailles were ethnical hotch-potches, cointaining sizeable German populations and lacking basic legitimacy in the eyes of the Nazi regime, disregarding of course the fact that Poles and Czechs are not German.
Although there were also exceptions to this ambition. The independence of Hungary was respected, as was a nation state provided for the Slovaks upon the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.
It seems clear to me this is where their ambitions clashed with France and Britain, who had set up these countries primarily as a check on Germany. In other words, the Allies went to war on what was fundamentally a balance of power issue.

I think it's wrong to assume that the Nazis founded policies on the concept of revenge. Countries occupied after Sep 1939 should primarily be seen as contingencies of the war in my opinion. This goes for the Balkans, all of western Europe and also Denmark and Norway.
There were to be sure no resources to grab in Norway. The matter was about securing the flow of Swedish iron ore and prohibiting the Allies from opening a front in Scandinavia, outflanking Germany above all in matters of strategic air and naval power. The immediate reason for invasion were German doubts about Norwegian neutrality and the realisation that the Norwegians would probably not fight at all given a Franco-British landing, something which was contemplated at this time in the Allied camp. So the Germans unleashed a pre-emptive strike in what must be seen as one of the most daring and uncertain undertakings of the war. Definitely not something a land power like Germany would do for fun.

In relation to the western powers, or at least in relation to the United Kingdom, Nazi Germany was never actually a prime aggressor. It had no interests in destroying the British Empire and Churchill could in fact have sued for peace without territorial loss, or even prestige, more or less whenever he wanted to. The point is England refused to do this.
In other words, if England would have had any interest in using Germany as a bulwark against Communism, it for some reason failed to appreciate such an opportunity.
The German acceptance of a continued existence of official France (Vichy France) also hints at the probablity that the occupation was not viewed as a permanent state of affairs in Berlin, rather as a wartime solution.

Cobra, I agree Italian Fascism and National Socialism was not the same thing. It's also wrong to assume Nazism originally was somehow inspired by the duce's revolution, in fact they were contemporary movements. In a functional sense, however, I still think it's rather useful to refer to them both as Fascism since both were basically about combing nationalism/right-wing ideology and Socialism into a new revolutionary synthesis.
In relation to the above, differences between them also fall out in a possibly unexpected and maybe not so flattering way in the case of Italian Fascism. After all, Mussolini is the one making all those pompous remarks about 'the cleansing quality of war' while also integrating them into his foreign policy. Considering Albania, the Greek fiasco and Italy's entry into WWII, you'd be hard-pressed to find such an opportunist land-grabbing mentality anywhere in Europe in those days.

The most forgiving part about Italian Fascism in comparison to National Socialism would probably be the lack of an inherent racialist doctrine, which in the case of Nazism had a most brutal and unattractive revelation in the case of regarding Slav populatons as "Untermenschen".

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-24 06:09:39

In relation to the western powers, or at least in relation to the United Kingdom, Nazi Germany was never actually a prime aggressor. It had no interests in destroying the British Empire and Churchill could in fact have sued for peace without territorial loss, or even prestige, more or less whenever he wanted to. The point is England refused to do this.

And this is a point that is not stressed enough. Hitler did not want war with England. Churchill was determined to destroy Nazi Germany, even if it meant engaging in an 'unnecessary' war and losing the Empire in the process.

In a functional sense, however, I still think it's rather useful to refer to them both as Fascism since both were basically about combing nationalism/right-wing ideology and Socialism into a new revolutionary synthesis.

Certainly. I agree that Nazism was a form of fascism in a general sense. The problem arises when the uninformed look at German National Socialism as the defining model of fascism when it was in fact a single example, and a peculiar one at that.

Hitler ruined fascism for everybody!

BWhite · 2004-09-24 07:05:44

If we focus on the racial component of Nazi-ism (blond, blue-eyed asserted as being superior) then perhaps its another example of tribal or cultural or civilizational identity trumping the nation-state.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-24 07:36:39

Gennaro:-

The independence of Hungary was respected ..

Only because Hungary was a staunch anti-semitic ally of Nazi Germany, participating in the invasion of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union in 1941.
Even so, with the Reich beginning to unravel, Germany occupied Hungary in March 1944.
It was expedient at first for Germany to allow Hungary a degree of 'independence' but I don't know how much respect was involved. When circumstances demanded it, Hitler kicked down the door, walked in, and took over.

Palomar · 2004-09-24 07:47:35

In relation to the western powers, or at least in relation to the United Kingdom, Nazi Germany was never actually a prime aggressor. It had no interests in destroying the British Empire and Churchill could in fact have sued for peace without territorial loss, or even prestige, more or less whenever he wanted to. The point is England refused to do this.
And this is a point that is not stressed enough. Hitler did not want war with England. Churchill was determined to destroy Nazi Germany, even if it meant engaging in an 'unnecessary' war and losing the Empire in the process.

*Really??

Geez...I guess I majorly overlooked something in all the reading I've done, watching History Channel programs, etc.

Not doubting you guys, but -- that's news to me.

Arrrgh, I'm not in the mood to discuss war today anyway. :down: :rant:

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-24 08:00:56

*Really??
Geez...I guess I majorly overlooked something in all the reading I've done, watching History Channel programs, etc.

Yes, not that the Nazis were nice peaceful guys or anything, they just didn't want to fight England for a host of reasons and would happily have reached a peaceful settlement were the English so inclined.

Churchill was obsessed with crushing Hitler, as was FDR to a lesser degree.

But we have a bit of that victors writing the history phenomenon in play, to really understand the motivations and relationships requires delving into some primary sources.

Palomar · 2004-09-24 08:06:34

not that the Nazis were nice peaceful guys or anything

*Yeah, they sure were not.

Churchill was obsessed with crushing Hitler, as was FDR to a lesser degree.

*And Hitler was obsessed with crushing most of Europe. What goes around comes around...

I think there should be a Primer for Dictators. First lesson: Bullies usually get a devastating come-uppance. Or, Some Call it Karma.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-24 08:26:12

Incidentally, I believe the idea that Britain could have sued for peace with Germany during the 'phoney war' period in late 1939 and early 1940, without "territorial loss, or even prestige", is flawed.
Germany had a significant land-grabbing track record by that time. First Austria, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland. The last of these was protected by treaty with Britain and its invasion already constituted a loss of prestige in the eyes of the British.
Churchill knew an expansionist warmonger when he saw one, having been one himself all his life(! ), and you didn't need to be a genius to see that Hitler wasn't going to rest on his laurels for very long. Churchill foresaw a time when Europe would be under Nazi control and the Mediterranean, so long a 'British lake', would fall under axis domination.
With the Axis Powers controlling Europe and the Mediterranean, Britain's access to her Empire via the Suez Canal, and to America and Canada via the North Atlantic, would be endangered. If Hitler chose to do so, Britain could be isolated and forced to dance to his tune.
Churchill didn't have the luxury of seeing Germany as a potential "bulwark against communism" because he recognised the extreme danger for Britain itself (not to mention the rest of Europe and perhaps the world) in allowing the continued existence of Hitler's regime.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-24 08:30:33

*And Hitler was obsessed with crushing most of Europe. What goes around comes around...

Let me first state that I am in no way trying to defend Nazism. That accusation is usually where these sorts of discussions go.

Nazi Germany was a vigourously expansionist power, but to say they were out to "crush Europe" is a gross oversimplification. There was a clear imperative to bring all Germans into the Greater Reich and this is the justification for the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia. There was some serious bad-blood with France, running both ways, but the invasion of France was largely in order to cover their rear for the move on the real target of German expansionism, the Soviet Union.

Needless to say, that war was an extremely complex web of national interests and personal motivations on all sides. Our foes were not mindlessly evil, and we and our allies were not as noble we like to remember.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-24 10:10:41

In relation to the western powers, or at least in relation to the United Kingdom, Nazi Germany was never actually a prime aggressor. It had no interests in destroying the British Empire and Churchill could in fact have sued for peace without territorial loss, or even prestige, more or less whenever he wanted to. The point is England refused to do this.
And this is a point that is not stressed enough. Hitler did not want war with England. Churchill was determined to destroy Nazi Germany, even if it meant engaging in an 'unnecessary' war and losing the Empire in the process.
*Really??
Geez...I guess I majorly overlooked something in all the reading I've done, watching History Channel programs, etc.
Not doubting you guys, but -- that's news to me.
Arrrgh, I'm not in the mood to discuss war today anyway. :down: :rant:
--Cindy

Actually, the Rothschild created Adolph Hitler along with there American junior partners like Brown brother Harrimans with there golfer Prescott Bush, Ford, Morgan, the Melons. Churchill backed out, because he didn't want British Empire controlled by Germans instead of Britain and not because they didn't like the policies of Adolph Hitler either. They wanted to control things and not be a junior partner of Adolph Hitler. Great Britain or should I say those bankers stated World War II. Adolph Hitler eliminated the Private Central Bank in Germany and went to Government Central Bank in Germany and those bankers double crossed Adolph Hitler and forced him into a corner and he had to fight. The part that the news media show us is Nazi Germany invading other countries, which they did. But, what set these whole things up and touched of the war, was these bankers with the Rothschildes backing and there American junior partners.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-24 10:24:10

Everyone knows that the Rothschilds only came up with the whole plot because the reptiloids from Alpha Draconis planted the idea with their psychic motivator ray.

Palomar · 2004-09-24 10:25:08

*And Hitler was obsessed with crushing most of Europe. What goes around comes around...
Let me first state that I am in no way trying to defend Nazism. That accusation is ususally where these sorts of discussions go.
Nazi Germany was a vigourously expansionist power, but to say they were out to "crush Europe" is a gross oversimplification. There was a clear imperative to bring all Germans into the Greater Reich and this is the justification for the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia. There was some serious bad-blood with France, running both ways, but the invasion of France was largely in order to cover their rear for the move on the real target of German expansionism, the Soviet Union.
Needless to say, that war was an extremely complex web of national interests and personal motivations on all sides. Our foes were not mindlessly evil, and we and our allies were not as noble we like to remember.

*Cobra, yes...I know you're not attempting to defend Nazism. Though I understand why you include the "disclaimer" in your post (newcomers).

LOL...oh god, I just remembered an incident in grade school. A friend of mine named Pam peeled some black electrical tape off a post, stuck it over her lip, raised her arm in a Nazi salute and yelled "Heil Hitler!" Lolol....she REALLY got into trouble for that. :laugh: She had a round face and brown bangs...kind of looked like a kid sister of his.

We were about 10 years old. What gets into people...lolol...

Nothing funny about Hitler himself, of course. And I'm in a bit of a different mood today.

--Cindy

Martian Republic · 2004-09-24 12:06:04

Everyone knows that the Rothschilds only came up with the whole plot because the reptiloids from Alpha Draconis planted the idea with their psychic motivator ray.

And that may not be very far from the truth either.

Boy, I hate saying stuff like this, it make me sound like a nut ball. ???

But, when your right, your right.

Larry,

Palomar · 2004-09-24 12:09:56

Everyone knows that the Rothschilds only came up with the whole plot because the reptiloids from Alpha Draconis planted the idea with their psychic motivator ray.

*No, no, no. :shakes head:

Everyone knows it was Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-24 12:22:17

Everyone knows it was Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.

Colonel Mustard was a Nazi?!

Brown uniform should have given it away. :hm:

Grypd · 2004-09-24 17:07:26

Everyone knows it was Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.
Colonel Mustard was a Nazi?!
Brown uniform should have given it away. :hm:

Ah but Miss scarlet was a communist spy and was under orders to seduce him!

In 1940 after Germany had defeated the Allies and forced the surrender of France it seems Hitler really thought that Britain would sue for peace. It was probably that reason that the Nazi's sent there second in command to try to broker a peace with some elements that where friendlier to the idea of National Socialism. Of course he got a free trip to the nearest prison and a nice trial at the end of the war. Followed by his interment in spandau prison till he died. It may be the Nazis hoped that Britain would have taken the offer and allowed them a free reign to attack Russia without fighting a two front war. Still he tried the battle of Britain where he overcalculated the Damage he had done to the RAF and went to phase 2 the flattening of cities. This gave the RAF a breather and a chance to use the Big wing tactic against the massed bombers, leading to the eventual defeat of the German air force. ???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-09-22 17:21:11

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#27 2004-09-22 17:31:10

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#28 2004-09-22 18:29:53

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#29 2004-09-22 21:27:56

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#30 2004-09-23 00:21:34

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#31 2004-09-23 04:23:18

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#32 2004-09-23 05:48:22

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#33 2004-09-23 18:04:02

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#34 2004-09-23 19:11:34

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#35 2004-09-23 22:04:34

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#36 2004-09-24 06:09:39

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#37 2004-09-24 07:05:44

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#38 2004-09-24 07:36:39

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#39 2004-09-24 07:47:35

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#40 2004-09-24 08:00:56

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#41 2004-09-24 08:06:34

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#42 2004-09-24 08:26:12

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#43 2004-09-24 08:30:33

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#44 2004-09-24 10:10:41

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#45 2004-09-24 10:24:10

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#46 2004-09-24 10:25:08

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#47 2004-09-24 12:06:04

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#48 2004-09-24 12:09:56

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#49 2004-09-24 12:22:17

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#50 2004-09-24 17:07:26

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

Board footer