Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Palomar · 2004-04-20 12:24:05

*Someone (Mundaka?) pointed out the other day that the original thread is getting a tad bit long...he's right, so I'm starting this one.

[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … 0420163408]The "D" Word

Oh my goodness. What will the nation's reaction be -IF- it comes to this?

But doesn't Dubya want most of our armed forces OUT of Iraq by June/July (mostly for his favor in the elections, of course)?

::EDIT:: Senator Hagel mentions it's soldiers of the lower and middle class dying in Iraq. How would restarting "D" eliminate social inequity? How would it ensure the upper classes get as involved? Don't make me laugh. Those who benefit the most from any given society contribute the least.

And I can't believe Bush leads Kerry in the polls. I guess the worse it gets, the more masochistic the U.S. gets. I could go on... :angry:

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 15:16:57

*Someone (Mundaka?) pointed out the other day that the original thread is getting a tad bit long...he's right, so I'm starting this one.
[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … 0420163408]The "D" Word
Oh my goodness. What will the nation's reaction be -IF- it comes to this?
But doesn't Dubya want most of our armed forces OUT of Iraq by June/July (mostly for his favor in the elections, of course)?
::EDIT:: Senator Hagel mentions it's soldiers of the lower and middle class dying in Iraq. How would restarting "D" eliminate social inequity? How would it ensure the upper classes get as involved? Don't make me laugh. Those who benefit the most from any given society contribute the least.

And I can't believe Bush leads Kerry in the polls. I guess the worse it gets, the more masochistic the U.S. gets. I could go on... :angry:
--Cindy

Bush just spent HALF of all cash he has on hand already. A big chunk went very reciently on Kerry trashing ads.

Kerry has not responded to date with any ads to contradict him.

It would actually be a big suprise if Kerry did not take at least some dip in the polls after all that cash had been spent on the airwaves.

The fact that bush has already spent half his cash and is still only at or less than 50% is actually grim news for Bush.

There are some that believe, though, that at the moment any news about Iraq, no matter good or bad, plays good for the president.

The point being that most people don't pay much attention this far out to news, politics, and forign affairs.

But it's extremely early. We not even close to the election.

Bush just unloaded a big wad of money on TV, and Kerry is about to. Because we are not seeing equal amounts of time in camaigning efforts, the polls are bound to swing. here and there.

In addition we see a very volitile world situation.

In addition, the polls that have the largest lead in the polls for bush are polls that 'push undecideds.' Those who say "I'm not sure" are asked "who are you leaning towards"

That kind of polling is very effective late in a campaign, but is somewhat meaningless this early on.

When polls show differences that are within margin of error, and are this far out, the best they can possibly do is show trends.

Here is a great trend poll:

[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Preside … g_Poll.htm]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Preside … g_Poll.htm

what this poll shows is a very slow but steady decline by bush up until about 2 weeks ago, when Rove started his heavy ad campaign. After which we see bush make a small up trend.

As bush's ad campaign has stopped, we shall see soon if he has gained momentem or has simply pulled himself out of the hole.

With kerry we see very volitile ratings, probably reactions to the news. Kerry has done little to no campainging in the last few weeks, focusing instead on fundrasing and taking time off for easter.

Kerry is now starting a media buy, but not in swing states. Kerry is buing ads in New York, California, Washington, etc. Democratic Base States.

His goal is not to win over swing voters, but to define his campaign.

Bush is in a different phase of his campaign than Kerry, and were still far far out from the race, and few are paying attention. Polls dont mean that much and will flip flop quite a bit before we get down to the wire.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 15:57:06

These calls for a draft at the moment are political ploys.

There is no way any legislation will pass before the election to reinstate the draft. it would be political suicide.

A better solution to our lack of troops, short of not engaging in elective warfare, would be to take the millions spent on private security companies and instead spend it on our troops.

As it sits now many of our best special forces troops are leaving the US army for the higher paying private security jobs.

Latest news about Syria has me worried. the US has engaged in actual combat with Syrians this week over the Iraqi/Syria border, and Israel has just expressed it's intentions of air bombing Syria in the hopes to kill a Hamas leader in exile there.

If we decide to go to war with another country, we will have to set up a draft, or leave many bases in the east and europe essentially unmanned.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 16:26:25

If we decide to go to war with another country, we will have to set up a draft, or leave many bases in the east and europe essentially unmanned.

We aren't as over-extended as is generally assumed. A draft is not only politically unworkable, but unneeded.

But if we go into Syria and (do it... Do it! ) Saudi Arabia as well, what's the problem with pulling troops out of Europe?

Or do the lefties think the Russians are still gonna invade? :;):

We can't send troops to fight our enemies because we need them to babysit our friends? ???

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 16:29:52

If we decide to go to war with another country, we will have to set up a draft, or leave many bases in the east and europe essentially unmanned.
We aren't as over-extended as is generally assumed. A draft is not only politically unworkable, but unneeded.
But if we go into Syria and (do it... Do it! ) Saudi Arabia as well, what's the problem with pulling troops out of Europe?
Or do the lefties think the Russians are still gonna invade? :;):
We can't send troops to fight our enemies because we need them to babysit our friends? ???

Well, not all military personall are trigger puillers.

We have over a Million men in europe, thats one hellova lot of folk essentially in reserve.

But only a small portion of those are actual fighters. the vast majority of trained American trigger pullers are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 16:37:14

We have over a Million men in europe, thats one hellova lot of folk essentially in reserve.

So with about 130,000 in Iraq... we could invade 7 other countries easy

I'm just messin' with you.

But only a small portion of those are actual fighters. the vast majority of trained American trigger pullers are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's not true. The percentage of "trigger pullers" in those places is higher (for obvious reasons) but by no means is the bulk of the US military fighting force in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though the force has been degraded, the US military still benefits from the Cold War desire to have the capability to fight essentially two wars at once. Big ones, like Europe and the Pacific. Iraq and Afghanistan are, in big picture terms, relatively minor engagements. It doesn't seem that way when you're the one getting shot at, but we are in no danger of collapsing for want a few more troops.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 16:52:03

While your here, Mr C, i would love to hear your take on how we can pull off this Iraq thing successfully.

I'll leave you to define success, but you must limit yourself to anything short of a war of attrition.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 17:00:03

We have over a Million men in europe, thats one hellova lot of folk essentially in reserve.
So with about 130,000 in Iraq... we could invade 7 other countries easy
I'm just messin' with you.
But only a small portion of those are actual fighters. the vast majority of trained American trigger pullers are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's not true. The percentage of "trigger pullers" in those places is higher (for obvious reasons) but by no means is the bulk of the US military fighting force in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though the force has been degraded, the US military still benefits from the Cold War desire to have the capability to fight essentially two wars at once. Big ones, like Europe and the Pacific. Iraq and Afghanistan are, in big picture terms, relatively minor engagements. It doesn't seem that way when you're the one getting shot at, but we are in no danger of collapsing for want a few more troops.

in the US army, it takes 18 support individuals to support one "trigger puller."

Point being the numbers we have in reserve can be misleading.

clark · 2004-04-20 17:16:33

Draft women and free up the men so we have a larger pool of trigger pullers.

We have enough troops, as long as the regular Army dosen't mind 2-4 year in theater rotations, and as long as the Reserve Guard don't mind 1-2 year tours.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 17:24:40

While your here, Mr C, i would love to hear your take on how we can pull off this Iraq thing successfully.
I'll leave you to define success, but you must limit yourself to anything short of a war of attrition.

The short version: Get Roman. Which entails the following:

Use local troops. We botched this, but it can be salvaged. We're doing better, though work still needs to be done.

Reward those who collaborate.

Destroy those whose resist in a manner that makes it known what the fate of all insurgents will be. Be brutal, but be consistent.

These previous points work together to create the impression "Fight us and you will die miserably, but the hardship ends if you just give up."

Appoint native officials to create the impression of nominal self-rule at the earliest possible opportunity.

Subtlely supplant the local culture, replacing it as much as possible with that of the occupier. This takes time, a generation at least. For an example, look at Japan.

Endeavor to be less hated than the previous rulers, but more feared.

Success is when we can turn the country over to local, elected leaders who will act in a manner conducive to our interests.

Sounds a bit sinister, but that's the bones of it. And we can pull it off with historically miniscule casualties, but it will take time.

Or we can leave now and have to do this all over again 20 years down the line.

clark · 2004-04-20 17:29:05

Brutish, but effective Cobra.

Of course we end up becoming what we despise in the process, not to mention giving up the very premise of all that we hold as ideal.

I don't think it's worth all the oil in Iraq.

Bill White · 2004-04-20 17:41:20

Given the past year, Cobra's solution may no longer be feasible. Besides, George Bush has already openly committed himself to NOT doing what Cobra suggests.

By the way, what Cobra suggests is exactly what the insurgents have been doing for the past year.

Once I read that Iraqi interpreters and cooks and secretaries who work for the Coalition ae getting killed in drive-by shootings and their families terrorized and we were NOT protecting our collaborators, I could only conclude that the occupation has been lost already.

= = =

PS - During the past year, while the Administration has been crowing abouit peace in the Shia regions, Iranian sponsored Hezbollah cells have been quietly and peacefully building covert infrastructure throughout Shia Iraq.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 17:56:52

Brutish, but effective Cobra.
Of course we end up becoming what we despise in the process, not to mention giving up the very premise of all that we hold as ideal.

Not necessarily, if it stays over there. One could even argue that it would be fulfilling our ideals, exporting freedom to the oppressed masses of the world.

And just like every other example in history, freedom doesn't come without blood. Conversely, a squeamish people cannot remain free. You'll see. ???

Given the past year, Cobra's solution may no longer be feasible. Besides, George Bush has already openly committed himself to NOT doing what Cobra suggests.

Bush also explicitly said we wouldn't be "nation building." Events have a way of forcing us to re-evaluate our options.

Once I read that Iraqi interpreters and cooks and secretaries who work for the Coalition ae getting killed in drive-by shootings and their families terrorized and we were NOT protecting our collaborators, I could only conclude that the occupation has been lost already.

Yes, unfortunately the insurgents are better at this than we are. We'd better learn damn fast.

My great concern is that America no longer has either the clarity of purpose nor the force of will to triumph.

clark · 2004-04-20 18:00:58

You invoke the memory of Rome, and all I see are her long dead ashes. :;): You'll see.

Tyranny dressed as freedom is an insult to those who spill their blood for what they perceive to be a just cause, which isn't.

We pay the price no matter what, but let us pay for what it's worth, no?

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 18:08:18

Tyranny dressed as freedom is an insult to those who spill their blood for what they perceive to be a just cause, which isn't.

But freeing a nation from a tyrant, and the gods forbid benefit ourselves from it, isn't tyranny. Going from oppression to freedom takes time and it's messy as Hell. Sometimes heads have to roll.

Americans forget their own history. Finishing the job took a bloodbath. Twice. To expect that we can topple a tyrant who held a country in the grip of fear for decades and expect a nice orderly progression to the polling places is foolishness of the worst sort.

We need to stamp out the insurgency with an iron fist but build the new nation with a felt glove.

clark · 2004-04-20 18:23:22

Hey, I agree. This is messy. A lot of good people, and even more bad people, will die. It will cost us all dearly. How much so remains to be seen.

Now, that said, we have to be prepared for those moments where it looks darkest.

There is an insurgency. There is progress. There is corruption. There is progress. There are setbacks. There is progress. By inches and yars, there is progress.

What do we see? We see small bands of men trying to terroize the small bands of men who try to work with us. The silent majority (which exsists everywhere and just tries to get through the day) are keeping their heads down. Bill had a wonderful quote about not attracting the attention of the gods... same thing. Lots of people are sitting it out and waiting to see which way the winds blow. Smart move given the ficklness of American foreign policy.

Yet if we stay the course, if we show that we are willing to bear the burden- if we simply outlast them, we will win. War of patience (albeit, the Arabs are a tough match, but hey, we got a few Hatfield and McCoy genes left in the American spirit).

We are stamping out the insurgency, but that takes time. We are treading lightly so as not to do anything exceedingly stupid- like go full bore into an urban city full of innocent civilians using the mst advanced weapons of this day and age. We don't try to destroy wholesale the mosques or any other sites of cultural importance.

If we wanted, we could wipe the desert clean. It would be easier. It would be indiscriminate. And it would be wrong.

But don't worry, I hear ya Cobra. I'm tired of the body count too.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 19:03:26

If we wanted, we could wipe the desert clean. It would be easier. It would be indiscriminate. And it would be wrong.
But don't worry, I hear ya Cobra. I'm tired of the body count too.

Yeah, and I suspect this war, not only Iraq but in general, is going to get a lot worse down the road.

So we have a choice of three options really:

1) Keeping on like we are and botch it.

2) Get a little Roman. British even.

3) End it right now. A sheet of hot glass from the 'stans to Jerusalem.

I'm for 2, while giving the impression that 3 is still on the table.

Palomar · 2004-04-20 19:33:32

We aren't as over-extended as is generally assumed. A draft is not only politically unworkable, but unneeded.
But if we go into Syria and (do it... Do it! ) Saudi Arabia as well, what's the problem with pulling troops out of Europe?

*I hope to god you are -joking-.

We're already barely treading water in Iraq as it is! :-\

Invading Syria would be tantamount to suicide...or getting some bombs detonated on U.S. soil for sure.

And I think we -are- as over-extended as is generally assumed...and worse.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 19:49:02

Quote (Cobra Commander @ April 20 2004, 18:26)
We aren't as over-extended as is generally assumed. A draft is not only politically unworkable, but unneeded.
But if we go into Syria and (do it... Do it! ) Saudi Arabia as well, what's the problem with pulling troops out of Europe?
*I hope to god you are -joking-.

Half joking. Eventually we're going to have deal with the Saudis, and probably the Syrians as well. We should get prepared for that.

And I think we -are- as over-extended as is generally assumed...and worse.

Based on what, out of curiosity?

Palomar · 2004-04-20 20:12:09

Quote (Cobra Commander @ April 20 2004, 18:26)
We aren't as over-extended as is generally assumed. A draft is not only politically unworkable, but unneeded.
But if we go into Syria and (do it... Do it! ) Saudi Arabia as well, what's the problem with pulling troops out of Europe?
*I hope to god you are -joking-.
Half joking. Eventually we're going to have deal with the Saudis, and probably the Syrians as well. We should get prepared for that.
And I think we -are- as over-extended as is generally assumed...and worse.
Based on what, out of curiosity?

*No. We can't afford to engage Syria and Saudi Arabia. Monetarily-wise, morale-wise, etc. We've lost too many people as it is. What REASON can Bush & Co give for going into S & SA? I mean a -believable- reason? He couldn't, and -still- cannot, prove the "reason" for going into Iraq (WMDs). Can we say "credibility problem"? I sure can.

Why do I say I think we -are- as over-extended as is generally assumed...and worse - ? Well, here's a few:

1. Many soldiers are having serious qualms about re-enlisting, if their current term is up or almost over.

2. New recruits to the military are dwindling down to a mere trickle.

3. People have been complaining for -months- about serious lack of proper body armour, reliable weapons, etc.

I suppose you might say those reports are coming from "the liberal media"...well, I've heard it "all around" (foreign news services as well, Western).

No, no, no...there is no reason to go to Syria or Saudi Arabia, it would be cutting our own throats. We're already in enough of a pickle!

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-20 20:51:03

*No. We can't afford to engage Syria and Saudi Arabia. Monetarily-wise, morale-wise, etc. We've lost too many people as it is. What REASON can Bush & Co give for going into S & SA? I mean a -believable- reason? He couldn't, and -still- cannot, prove the "reason" for going into Iraq (WMDs). Can we say "credibility problem"? I sure can.

I'm not saying we should invade Syria tomorrow or that we should move on the Saudis next week, but it's coming one way or another. It's not about WMD or some politician's reason of the week. We have had this war thrust upon us, we need to accept that it's going to be a long and hard fight and that we aren't fighting a country or an organization, but a mentality. An idealogy. I am willing to do whatever it takes to make sure we win this fight because the alternative is immensely worse. The Saudis are a big factor in the spread of this terrorist, anti-western, fundamentalist Islam problem. They need to be dealt with. If we can do it through means other than war I'm all for it, but war needs to be an option.

It doesn't matter what reason Bush or any other pol gives for the action, only that it's taken. If a cover story about uranium crappin' sand sharks is what it takes to sell it the public, fine. Our enemies are in this fight heart and soul and they want to see us wiped from the face of the Earth. We can no longer afford to treat this is a "war of choice," it isn't.

I'm really not trying to come down too harsh on you, Cindy.

1. Many soldiers are having serious qualms about re-enlisting, if their current term is up or almost over.

Based on statistics or anecdotal evidence? And is it different than the normal re-enlistment figures, which are fairly low. Just because someone doesn't want to go career doesn't mean they're demoralized.

2. New recruits to the military are dwindling down to a mere trickle.

In some areas of the country. In others enlistment is up. We'll see if it evens out when there's enough data to draw conclusions. I haven't checked it, but I suspect it's not so dire.

3. People have been complaining for -months- about serious lack of proper body armour, reliable weapons, etc.

What people? From what I hear (based primarily on accounts from acquaintences, friends and family in the military) the troops themselves don't have too many issues in this regard. Some body armor is being issued without trauma plates which annoys a few, but overall everything is in order as I hear it.

No, no, no...there is no reason to go to Syria or Saudi Arabia, it would be cutting our own throats. We're already in enough of a pickle!

:hm: How fortunate that we aren't fighting WWII today...

Euler · 2004-04-20 21:29:13

we aren't fighting a country or an organization, but a mentality. An idealogy.

Indeed. We can invade every Islamic country in the world, and it would not change their ideology. It would only make them hate us worse.

We have already been hurt enough over Iraq. Invading more countries would invite UN condemnations and economic sanctions. Our allies would stop supporting us and other countries would wonder who will be next and ally against us. We could even end up in a real war. That is not something that we want happening.

Mundaka · 2004-04-21 00:17:26

Bill White · 2004-04-21 07:39:14

If we wanted, we could wipe the desert clean. It would be easier. It would be indiscriminate. And it would be wrong.
But don't worry, I hear ya Cobra. I'm tired of the body count too.
Yeah, and I suspect this war, not only Iraq but in general, is going to get a lot worse down the road.
So we have a choice of three options really:
1) Keeping on like we are and botch it.
2) Get a little Roman. British even.
3) End it right now. A sheet of hot glass from the 'stans to Jerusalem.
I'm for 2, while giving the impression that 3 is still on the table.

In this age of the internet (do you read the Iraqi bloggers?) and the car bomb and the global flow of advanced weapons (or even obsolete weapons like the SAM-7) and an American dislike of casualties, is "being Roman, or British" feasible?

The British military experts, by the way, seem to rather universally condemn American tactics as foolish and counterproductive.

Today's Basra bombings - - targeted at Iraqis having at best a tenuous connection with the Coalition - - reconfirms that the insurgents ARE using the tactics Cobra advocates.

If they kill Iraqis who show the least sign of cooperation with the Coalition and we do not aggressively protect our collaborators, no one will cooperate with us and sooner or later the entire country will be united in asking us to leave.

Read [http://www.agonist.org/archives/015242.html#015242]this essay.

In short, the US has been using massive bombing to roll up the body count - and slaughter civilians - but it has not touched either the military or terrorist wings of the violent opposition. Both still maintain operational cohesion, indicating that we have been chewing on firepower fodder - but not attacking the leadership, nor destroying their ability to operate.
For this reason there is an increasing perception that the US military strategy in Iraq is unsound. This perception, should it reflect on the political leadership, will crack the will to remain in Iraq. The cost for leaving will not be as severe as the crowish would have us believe. Long term, any Iraqi government will want AlQaeda and the rest of the terrorists out. However, they will, equally, want the foreign ownership of their country, and Versailles-esque reparations removed. The US is holding on, not because of terrorism, or the threat of instability, but because of the desire for profit. The guerillas know it, and that is why they continue to hunt down and kill businessmen in Iraq - a Dane was found dead yesterday - and attack the sinews of security.

As Mundaka says, there really are far fewer foreign fighters that might have been imagined. Which suggests those additional forces are being held in reserve. Hardly a pleasant thought.

A few weeks ago I was astounded to read that we lost a helo near Fallajuh to a SAM, not RPGs, but a military grade SAM.

= = =

Concerning the draft, how can we fight this war and also afford massive tax cuts and a growing budget deficit?

Suppose we "win" for the next 10 or 20 years. If our economy and federal budget collapses what happens in 25 years?

And since Saudi Arabia is necessarily involved, IMHO we need to prepare our economy to survive a few years, or more, without ANY Persian Gulf oil exports. Thus far terrorists have not committed sabotage against the oil terminals but that only shows they are not that desperate yet.

They aren't ready to admit they are losing. ???

Why blow up oil terminals they intend to control?

Byron · 2004-04-21 08:02:30

My biggest fear is not Iraq, but what may happen in Saudi Arabia sometime in the future. While they're our "allies" for the moment, I wouldn't be too surprised to see groups of terrorists attempt to overthrow the existing Saudi goverment sometime in the near future (the House of Saud.) A few well-placed bombs in the major oil transshipment centers over there will probably do the trick, cutting off fully 1/4 of the world's oil supply for many weeks, if not for months. We would have no choice but to mount a D-Day-type of invasion at that point, otherwise the US and the rest of the Western world would be plunged into a crippling economic depression, as no one would be able to afford to operate a motor vehicle or fly in airplanes or operate factories or grow crops...not with the spot price of oil soaring past $200 a barrel

Sad to say, we're going to be over there for a very long time to come...and we honestly have no choice but to "dig in" and fight these terrorists on their home territory, or we'll be paying the price on our soil time and time again. Every time I get disgusted over all the death and violence over there, seeing Bush's constant mis-handling of the situation, etc, etc, I just have to think about one thing: 9-11. If we are unwilling to fight this war (which I consider the beginnings of WWIII (or WWIV, according to some), they *will* continue to attack us, anyway they can.

I know it sucks, but war is part and parcel of the human existence, and we really have no choice but to fight...otherwise we can kiss our vaunted way of life "goodbye"...permanently.

B

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-20 12:24:05

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#2 2004-04-20 15:16:57

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#3 2004-04-20 15:57:06

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#4 2004-04-20 16:26:25

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#5 2004-04-20 16:29:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#6 2004-04-20 16:37:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#7 2004-04-20 16:52:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#8 2004-04-20 17:00:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#9 2004-04-20 17:16:33

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#10 2004-04-20 17:24:40

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#11 2004-04-20 17:29:05

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#12 2004-04-20 17:41:20

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#13 2004-04-20 17:56:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#14 2004-04-20 18:00:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#15 2004-04-20 18:08:18

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#16 2004-04-20 18:23:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#17 2004-04-20 19:03:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#18 2004-04-20 19:33:32

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#19 2004-04-20 19:49:02

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#20 2004-04-20 20:12:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#21 2004-04-20 20:51:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#22 2004-04-20 21:29:13

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#23 2004-04-21 00:17:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#24 2004-04-21 07:39:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#25 2004-04-21 08:02:30

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