European Cowardice

Dook · 2004-08-11 13:49:09

Well I certainly do not see how any of my remarks are childish, irresponsible, or show-off. Chauvinistic, okay. What iritates me is the lack of respect for the what American's have done for the world. You do not have to agree with America's action in Iraq and you can point out and obsess about the mistakes we have made but there is an underlying theme to your comments. Jealousy. What is it about you or your country that you are ashamed of? Maybe it's the cowardly way your government appeases and continually retreats from the threat enemies (Terrorism, old USSR, Saddam, North Korea) pose to the world? Maybe it's the lack of economic power that European countries have on their own even though they have been around for hundreds of years longer than the USA. What food have you given to other countries in need? What great inventions have you given to the world? Vehicles? Airplanes? Computers? Medical? What payment has Europe given the USA in return not just for WW2 but the monetary aid they received to rebuild after?

Europeans live under the theme "live and let live". That's fine for you since you know we will come in to save your ass again one day in the future, probably after you've built a nuclear reactor in Syria or maybe some African nation ruled by a renegade leader bent on ruling the continent. You take money and then make the world a more dangerous place, then refuse to take military action to correct the problem. That's fine but some day your children will ask you "How come we are cowards?"

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-11 13:55:07

You forgot to add Iran (nukes) and Syria (CWs) to the dangerous countries list... and to spell it out more plainly:

"What payment has Europe given for the blood of tens of thousands of young men from the USA in return for saving them after WW2? What percentage of young Frenchmen of the French population gave their lives for their freedom?"

BWhite · 2004-08-11 14:03:06

The Soviet Union sustained the most casualties in WW2, and Stalin's armies killed far more Nazis than the US/UK/CAN did on the Western Front or in Italy.

clark · 2004-08-11 14:09:21

Only an insolent child bawls at their parent. We have deep roots from over there.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-11 14:10:37

Which is entirely true, but it changes nothing. The European armies of Stalin marched to Berlin to fix a European problem which I am greatful and a little proud of, but it simply would not have suceeded without the invasion of France and Italy. And this invasion was also soaked with blood of young Americans, some 2,000-3,000 killed every single day during the Normandy breakout and the slog up Italy, about 11 pints of which belonged to my family... And what has France done to even show their gratitude for this ultimate gift? Chirac stamping his foot in New York and opposing America just because we're America? Consorting with Saddam for cheap oil?

clark · 2004-08-11 14:17:41

Check out Afghanistan. Iraq War 1. Just for starters...

BWhite · 2004-08-11 14:18:44

Which is entirely true, but it changes nothing. The European armies of Stalin marched to Berlin to fix a European problem which I am greatful and a little proud of, but it simply would not have suceeded without the invasion of France and Italy. And this invasion was also soaked with blood of young Americans, some 2,000-3,000 killed every single day during the Normandy breakout and the slog up Italy, about 11 pints of which belonged to my family... And what has France done to even show their gratitude for this ultimate gift? Chirac stamping his foot in New York and opposing America just because we're America? Consorting with Saddam for cheap oil?

Ah, the heart of the matter.

The American Founding Fathers had a deep distrust concerning the potential for abuse of power. Checks and balances on unilateral use of power is the heart and soul of the US Constitution.

IMHO, George Bush has been seeking a global structure where the US has the unilateral prerogative to use power without anyone's permission. Chirac refused to rubber stamp American hegemony.

Okay, smash the French or deal with it. And they do have 400 H-bombs and MIRV SLBMs. Blame that on DeGaulle.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-11 14:37:46

"IMHO, George Bush has been seeking a global structure where the US has the unilateral prerogative to use power without anyone's permission. Chirac refused to rubber stamp American hegemony."

Ohhh yes. "Unilateral." Oh come on... what you really mean is "without France/Germany/Russia/UN dictators club" We've got Italy, we've got Poland, we've got Britain, we've got Austrailia, we've got Japan, we've got South Korea, and we had Spain (before they ran) all physicly deploying armed troops on the ground... Unillateral my foot. France & Russia also had a vested economic interest to keeping Saddam in power, so the cheap oil would keep flowing to rehabilitate Russia and prop up socialist France.

Speaking of which, another point of general European cowardice and apathy... that they pretty much just let America shoulder the whole burden of defending Europe, except maybe Britain a little. No European countries have the ability to field any military force of any size anywhere, plus a severe lack of naval and armored forces and their logistics, and it has been this way for decades... "just let the Americans handle it."

And as far as our entry into WW2... before Pearl Harbor, it wasn't a World War. It was yet another European internal conflict, and we'd just finished one... why should we bother with it?

Oh and a little terminology lesson, "soverign" means not having to ask other countries permission to use force. Last I checked, America still fell under this term.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 14:43:22

Ohhh yes. "Unilateral." Oh come on... what you really mean is "without France/Germany/Russia/UN dictators club" We've got Italy, we've got Poland, we've got Britain, we've got Austrailia, we've got Japan, we've got South Korea, and we had Spain (before they ran) all physicly deploying armed troops on the ground... Unillateral my foot. France & Russia also had a vested economic interest to keeping Saddam in power, so the cheap oil would keep flowing to rehabilitate Russia and prop up socialist France.

So why does it surprise you that Chirac and Putin resist us?

Is Chirac corrupt? Well du'h!

Its like that scene in the movie Casablanca:

"Gambling? I'm shocked!"
"Your winnings, sir"

= = =

If we can leverage France, okay just do it. If not, stop whining.

Dook · 2004-08-11 14:48:26

Ok, I'm no history buff, but I just did a little research about WWII. Here's the http://www.qt.org/worldwar/timeline/]timeline:
March 12, 1938 -- Germany invades Austria.
Sept. 1, 1939 -- Germany invades Poland.
Sept. 3, 1939 -- Britain and France declare war on Germany.
Dec. 8, 1941 -- America and Britain declare war on Japan.
Dec. 11, 1941 -- Germany declares war on the U.S.A.

Apathetic America finally joins the fight two years after Britain and France, but against Germany? No, Japan.
How many lives could have been saved if America had entered the war earlier?

How can you criticize America's involvement in WW2??

America at that time was a very reluctant world leader and we were not ready for war. Much of our equipment was outdated even by WW2 standards. The P-51 and B-29 came late in the war. Our submarines didn't have enough torpedo's and most of the ones they had didn't work or would circle back and take out our own sub. Germany attacking Russia was certainly the key to their defeat but remember the US was fighting the Japanese as well. Every country that was involved in WW2 had to be because they were threatened with conquest. The USA was not. There was no way that Japan or Germany would have been able to take the continental US. Hawaii, yeah, maybe but the USA would have lived on unlike European countries. So, why did we do it? Why did we give thousands of lives for a people who's children are so ungrateful and jealous?

Apathetic? Not true. We supported England with merchant marine shipments that cost many American lives before we entered WW2.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 14:50:49

Why did we give thousands of lives for a people who's children are so ungrateful and jealous?

Why are "they" so ungrateful? Maybe the sons and daughters of those who fought WW2 are themselves different than their parents.

Oh, I forget, can't look in the mirror except to comb one's hair.

= = =

Chirac is corrupt and Putin is ex-KGB. Okay, deal with it.

Civilian pouting and foot stomping about ingratitude strikes me as stunningly naive and ineffectual.

Dook · 2004-08-11 15:01:59

I see Europeans protesting in the streets for peace only when the USA has military aims. For some reason they sit by and allow constant terrorism on their own territory, they release known terrorists (Italy with the Achille Largo terrorists), they choose to appease the radical arabs (Libya's Khadafi, Iran, Saddam) and sell them nuclear reactors rather than stand up to them. Reminds me of how Europe cowardly backed down to Hitler just before he invaded and conquered them all. Europe's appeasement of threats is what caused WW2. And the lack of determined military action by the Clinton administration is the reason we had 9/11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan. We've tried to stay out of the worlds affairs but it bites us in the ass every time.

smurf975 · 2004-08-11 15:05:59

WWII is what now? Sixty years ago?! If you are going to talk about past wars why not talk about the viking invasion of England and France and how the Italians and Germans didn't help them.

Gulf War II is just plainy about that France, Germany and Belgium disagree with the motives for starting it. The Nato, had no problems with helping the US when it entered Afganistan. So it's not just "Americans screw you" as some people like the think, its just they didn't feel Saddam was a threat to western countries.

However I do understand the point that the Germans and French are to easy to sell potentially dangerous technology to dictatorships and other dangerous countries. However don't forget that the US the biggest arms seller of the world.

After Gulfwar I, the US is the biggest supplier of highly advanced weapons to the gulf states. And as you may know some of the gulf states have a lot of internal problems. What if some revolution happens like in Iran? Then those gulf states are at the other side of the line but with newest american weapons technologies.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 15:16:42

I see Europeans protesting in the streets for peace only when the USA has military aims. For some reason they sit by and allow constant terrorism on their own territory, they release known terrorists (Italy with the Achille Largo terrorists), they choose to appease the radical arabs (Libya's Khadafi, Iran, Saddam) and sell them nuclear reactors rather than stand up to them. Reminds me of how Europe cowardly backed down to Hitler just before he invaded and conquered them all. Europe's appeasement of threats is what caused WW2. And the lack of determined military action by the Clinton administration is the reason we had 9/11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan. We've tried to stay out of the worlds affairs but it bites us in the ass every time.

Hitler is a complex case.

Was England ready for war when Chamberlain went to Munich? That is not so clear.

Poland was Stalin and Hitler ganging up.

Had Guderian not developed armored blitkreig tactics, or had the French and BEF not failed to secure the Ardennes against armored attack, Hitler would have thrown himself against the Maginot Line and failed. The failure of May 1940 was the belief that the Maginot Line would some how render France invulnerable - - rather like our belief that a missile defense shield will protect us. It will protect against ICBMs (maybe) but then the bad guys merely need to find a work around.

And a North Korean regime change might be cheaper than missile defense.

= = =

Roughly half of America is not happy with Gulf War 2. So the French also don't like the idea. Whats the big deal.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with September 11th.

Like I said, find a way to leverage the French or stop whining.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-08-11 16:00:53

The USA has done some good and noble things in the past

However, I can see some of the right wing idiots have been attending the Bush Bible sessions

The US didn't save everyone's butt in world war 2 as some of the right-wing nut jobs claim
http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/ … clesam.jpg
The USA killed innocent civillians when they dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima
http://www.softwar.net/ATOMWAR.GIF]http … TOMWAR.GIF
http://westbynorthwest.org/summer02/vop … ctim13.gif
while the fascist Japan Emperor and his Imperial Nazi buddies got away scott free

The USA didn't save everyone's butt in the War, they were too busy making money out of selling equipments while the gypsies, political people and Jews were screaming out for help begging uncle Sam to come over
the USA had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the war and even then it got itself licked much of the time, the Pearl Harbor attack,
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag … k13513.jpg
Nazi German U-boats destroying shipping on the East Coast and the USA even with help from Canada and the British still got itself hammered by the Germans in North Africa

Now the Europeans might have had many good things and nice parts of their civilistaion but also many bad things such as Rome Empire and slaves, or the Dark ages and the Nazi Germans
but look at where the USA is going and the mistakes it is making, the bombing of Nicaragua, training of the Taliban and Mujaheddin in Terrorism so they can attack people, attacking Guatemala without provocation, supplying Saddam with biological and chemical weapons and then supplying the other enemy : see Irangate, the destruction of villages in Vietnam
'ghost' detainees camp X-ray Guantanamo
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/LAW/12/02/gua … ...nee.jpg
So much for fighting for honesty, liberty and freedom
The Europeans i assume do not want to repeat the mistakes of their Drak ages, yet Bush wants to continue on the wrong track and his self -centered crusade at the cost more of innocents

Stu · 2004-08-11 16:05:34

I don't want to be a pain in the behind but didn't the IRA stop due to negotiations (peace talks) or like some like to call it “appeasement” and not by UK forces entering Ireland?

Very good point, and I happen to agree with you. Personally I've been sickened by the *recent* appeasement of the IRA, it's felt like we've just rolled over and bared our throats to them, but I wasn't talking about stopping the IRA, I was talking about how we've struggled against them in times past. In the 70s, 80s and 90s there was certainly no appeasement.

And anyway, the IRA were only forced to negotiate because of the presence of the British army there in the first place. And the dawning realisation that they couldn't win with guns and semtex.

But I'm not having *anyone* call us cowards, sorry.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 16:12:36

For some reason they sit by and allow constant terrorism on their own territory, they release known terrorists (Italy with the Achille Largo terrorists), they choose to appease the radical arabs (Libya's Khadafi, Iran, Saddam) and sell them nuclear reactors rather than stand up to them.
Hey, don't tar us all with the same brush, ok? :rant:

I have several internet pals from England who steadfastly deny that Great Britain is "European" - - therefore you and your people are excluded from the criticism.

I suppose Neville Chamberlain was British but I also remember some history about the need to start building Spitfires and Hurricanes before taking on Hitler.

. . . under-paid, under-sexed, under Eisenhower. . .

Grypd · 2004-08-11 17:50:22

Quote GCNRevenger Aug 11 2004, 16:37

No european countries have the ability to field any military force of any size anywhere, plus a severe lack of naval and armored forces and there logistics, and it has been this way for decades... "just let the Americans handle it."

As im British I kind of resent that remark. Starting with the Falklands war where Britain managed to create a taskforce sail it all the way down to the Islands and defeat the emplaced enemy in a very short time for starters. Next the Gulf war 1 due to severe shortage of mine sweepers it became routine for British vessels to have to escort the American navy!. Also on gulf war 1 & 2 the main non gulf base used by the Americans to be able to reach Irag was also British. The main over the horizon radar available are based in the British bases in Cyprus. And did you not notice the rather large contingent of British soldiers which have the second city of Iraq and incidentally most of the oil fields under there control.

As to the IRA they where losing. There brigade structure etc had been seriously damaged and with incidents like losing whole cells to well planned ops they began to fragment. Most finances for the IRA came from sympathisers in the United States but with global television and intelligence lead seizing of assets this funding had begun to dry up. Also at the time the IRA used libya to get weapons and training and the American goverment after lockerbie where not friends with anyone who had links to Libya. The IRA then turned to drug running to fund itself this and the good friday peace accords caused the IRA to totally fragment with numerous splinter cells forming.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 18:35:57

The Brits did a fine job against the IRA as has been pointed out by others.

The French also didn't do so badly with http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … l]Algerian terrorists in the early to mid 1990s, including storming an airliner that was possibly going to crash into the Eiffel Tower.

Too bad Condi Rice apparently paid no attention to that example and was totally surprised by September 11th.

On December 24, 1994, Algerian Armed Islamic Group hijacked an AirFrance commercial jet and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. AIG is an Islamic terrorist group tied to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. As warnings go, this was a dead giveaway.
The plot had been scheduled for New Year's Eve, but the operatives carrying it out had moved it up to Christmas Eve due to concerns about being caught. The change of plans ended up putting the flight on a refueling stop before it could hit the tower, and French commandos stormed the plane, successfully killing the hijackers.

Cowardly? How?

Dook · 2004-08-12 01:19:12

Yang: First off your links do not provide any information to support any of your claims.

The US killed innocent civilians when they dropped the atomic bomb? Unfortunately civilians are not innocent in war because they support the war machine and in WW2 we didn't have the ability to take out military infrastructure without dropping thousands of bombs. The sailors aboard the battleships at Pearl Harbor were all innocent. There was no declaration of war. Were the 100 civilians executed by the Japanese on Wake Island innocent? Or the 300,000 Chinese killed in Nanking by Japanese troops?

Dropping the atomic bombs saved lives. Estimates ran as high as 1,000,000 Japanese deaths and 100,000 American casualties for an invasion of Japan.

The Japanese Emperor was virtually a puppet. He did what his military leaders advised except he decided to end the war, they wanted to continue fighting even after the 2 atomic bombs were dropped. And the Nazi's were tried and executed. Ever hear of Nuremburg?

What money did the USA make from WW2? You must be insane. What did we sell and to whom? And this time could you provide some kind of proof other than a cartoon?

Jews screaming for help? In what forum? Was it in the newspapers? On the radio? From what I know it seems the Nazi's did a pretty good job of keeping a secret about what was really happening and the world didn't find out until the very end. Oh yes, thank you for your countries support in preventing it and stopping it as well.

Yes the USA was reluctant to enter WW2. Another full blown European war 22 years after the first? Why would we enter it immediately? As I said we were not ready for war and our equipment was outdated. Yeah, we sure got licked at Pearl Harbor. I bet you earn a lot of respect from your communist party leader for saying things like that. Do you have to learn a song to go along with it? Maybe you all sit around and watch the Tianamen Square massacre for laughs.

The U-boats had the advantage at the beginning, then their chances of returning from a mission dropped to almost zero. And Rommel's Africa Corp got slapped by Patton. Why do you even engage in such arguments when you obviously don't know history? They must have some kind of educational system in your country, maybe you should go back and start from the beginning and then, maybe some day, you can take few college level class in world history and quit relying on comic strips for your information.

The bombing of Nicaragua, attacking Guatemala. Sigh...Do you even know anything about what happened and why?

Training of the Taliban, uh, sorry, the USA was not involved with that. The Taliban was trained and supplied with military equipment from Pakistan. The Mujahedeen were given some help from the USA, primarily anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Russian aircraft. They certainly were not trained by the USA to be terrorists.

Algol · 2004-08-12 02:49:58

sailors aboard the battleships at Pearl Harbor were all innocent. There was no declaration of war.

Dont want to be controversial but, the americans sunk a jap submarine at the entrance to Pearl Harbor just over an hour before the main attack began; so technically seeing as shots had been fired (interestingly enough the USA fired the first shots) you could say the war had started even though the jap ambassador was late with his message. But thats just me throwing info out there.

What did we sell and to whom?

You sold us lots of lots of shiny bits of military equipment during the war and then lent us lots of money afterwards. Cheers!

Bringing the Iraqi people freedom and prosperity is a noble goal, but that was not the reason why we went to war. Because of that, we were in the wrong mindset to help the Iraqi people, and the benefits that they have gained are diminished. Perhaps if we had done this to help the Iraqi people, Iraq would not be the breeding ground of terrorism and discontent that it is today.

Exactly. If you look at Afghanistan and Iraq, you have on one hand a country descended into religious fanaticism basically run by terrorists, on the other you have heavily secular country, and practically the only country in the region to not harbour terroists. And then look at how much GWB wants to spend on each one in his war on TERROR.

Sadham was a evil man who did evil things to his people, but he was basically a third rate despot with little or no ability to destabalise a table let alone the region. There are roughly thirty of those in the world today, is GWB going to make us invade them all?

BTW, the IRA was funded by America(ns) to buy guns from Libya, drugs from columbia and kill us Brits - that always annoyed me.

They certainly were not trained by the USA to be terrorists.

Erm yes, of course they were trained to fight a conventail war. :laugh:
The world is primarilly screwed up today because of the west and the old USSR playing wars and politics by proxy everywhere they could. The west is all thats left so its our responsibilty to clear up the mess.

Grypd · 2004-08-12 04:32:19

This thread is becoming a bash another country and is not exactly condusive to good relations amongst the Mars Society and New Mars in particular.

A lot of peoples preconceptions and Values are coming out here and WE have to be careful it does not become a slanging match. Especially as what most of these topics are is becoming history. People must remember in the second world war peoples attitudes and ways of life are a lot more different than they are now. Using what happened then to prove a point in the present is a bit ludicrous.

Because if we really start having to use history to prove your points you my well have to go further back than the second world war. Iraq or Persia being created by the allies and in particular Britain after the first world war, and it was unstable then actually almost joining the Axis side in the Second world war. With hindsight we can see now warnings of what was to come that where not picked up, but the people then did not and we can not blame them. Blitzkrieg or lightning war was the invention of a British officer and he published the book which was ignored in Britain and avidly read in Germany. An attack on pearl harbour was a scenario created by an American but when the Japanese did attack, the plan they had and the scenario where so similar it makes you wonder if it had been copied verbatum. But also sometimes integrity does come through and this is to be applauded. Germany did attempt to have a peace treaty with Britain in 1940 in this Germany sent there second in command over to try to start negociations (he got thrown into a cell, where he remained till he was moved to spandau prison).

What must be remembered in history people make mistakes there desires may blind them to the obvious (Neville Chamberlain?). It is important that we learn from these mistakes so that we do not repeat them. I am not sure if all Frances objections to the War in Iraq was it was illegal etc I think national interest had some sway there, maybe. But since, France is becoming heavily involved in the Darfur region of Sudan which is becoming the worlds current biggest Humanitarian disaster. My own country Britain cant (we are far too heavily involved elsewhere Iraq, Sierra leone etc).
France has no national interest in that region it is simply responding to a real human crisis and for this they should be applauded.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-12 05:33:50

I am not sure if all Frances objections to the War in Iraq was it was illegal etc I think national interest had some sway there, maybe.

At last we come to it! National interest, perceived national interest more specifically. France and Germany are presently both seeking to be the dominant player in the EU, and both want to see the EU become a counterweight to the US. Naturally, neither is eager to expend their own resources to help America carry out an operation that will harm them financially. Saddam owed the French and Germans mucho dinero, and he was giving some serious kickbacks through the UN Oil for Palaces... er Food program.

Nations do not have friends. They don't form alliances because the leaders are buddies, but because of shared interests. America and Britain share similar goals in many respects and thus are close allies. With the demise of the Soviet Union, America's and Western Europe's interests have diverged. It doesn't mean they're cowards, ungrateful pricks or treacherous swine, merely that the situation has changed. Notice that Eastern Europe, the former Warsaw Pact countries, have gotten real cozy with America of late. Changing scenario, changing interests.

Gennaro · 2004-08-12 06:53:55

el schorcho, I believe your comment to me about the relevance of Iraq for the war on terror has already been answered by others.

I'm merely going to nit-pick on this one, not because I think the Brits lack balls or the Blitz wasn't tough on them, but primarily to put things into perspective:

The UK is probably one of the ballsiest countries ever to exist. Think of the Battle of Britain in 1940: basically the equivalent of a 9/11 in every major city on the American east coast every night for a year, and they stuck it out and kicked ass.

Yeah. The Germans dropped 74,172 tons of bombs on Britain including "Retaliation" rockets (V1 and V2) during the entire war. The Allies dropped about 900,000 tons of bombs on Germany (excluding rest of Axis held Europe). This wasn't in retaliation for the Blitz either since the strategic air offensive of the Bomber Command was initiated in May 1940 (the source I give is mistaken about this).
Should we conclude the Germans for this reason were over ten times as "ballsy" as the English? Somehow I don't think you'd agree to such a preposterous proposition.

We've all had our 9/11's over here over and over. Still the Germans held military funerals for every last shot down enemy aircrew.

Think about it.

Maybe so should people who are so full of themselves they don't realize how demeaning and utterly uninformed it is calling an entire continent "cowards" by sweeping and fanciful statements.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europ … b.html#B29

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-12 09:03:09

Will we continue to grow apart? Will the threat of terrorism draw us closer together (once Dubya's out the Oval Office I mean) again?

This ties into what I was talking about earlier regarding differences between nations. Terrorism could draw Europe and America closer, or wedge us further apart if too many Europeans see attacks on their soil as somehow our fault. In either case, Dubya is irrelevant. Britain isn't with us because Tony Blair likes Bush, France didn't oppose us because Chirac thinks he's a cowboy. Who sits in the Oval Office is not the issue. The Kerry campaign would like us to believe it's all about personal tiffs, but it just isn't the case.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-11 13:49:09

Re: European Cowardice

#2 2004-08-11 13:55:07

Re: European Cowardice

#3 2004-08-11 14:03:06

Re: European Cowardice

#4 2004-08-11 14:09:21

Re: European Cowardice

#5 2004-08-11 14:10:37

Re: European Cowardice

#6 2004-08-11 14:17:41

Re: European Cowardice

#7 2004-08-11 14:18:44

Re: European Cowardice

#8 2004-08-11 14:37:46

Re: European Cowardice

#9 2004-08-11 14:43:22

Re: European Cowardice

#10 2004-08-11 14:48:26

Re: European Cowardice

#11 2004-08-11 14:50:49

Re: European Cowardice

#12 2004-08-11 15:01:59

Re: European Cowardice

#13 2004-08-11 15:05:59

Re: European Cowardice

#14 2004-08-11 15:16:42

Re: European Cowardice

#15 2004-08-11 16:00:53

Re: European Cowardice

#16 2004-08-11 16:05:34

Re: European Cowardice

#17 2004-08-11 16:12:36

Re: European Cowardice

#18 2004-08-11 17:50:22

Re: European Cowardice

#19 2004-08-11 18:35:57

Re: European Cowardice

#20 2004-08-12 01:19:12

Re: European Cowardice

#21 2004-08-12 02:49:58

Re: European Cowardice

#22 2004-08-12 04:32:19

Re: European Cowardice

#23 2004-08-12 05:33:50

Re: European Cowardice

#24 2004-08-12 06:53:55

Re: European Cowardice

#25 2004-08-12 09:03:09

Re: European Cowardice

Board footer