Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-31 14:43:53

*If any State is greatest, it's currently California.

Nice to visit, but I don't think I'd want to live there.

*Correct me if wrong, but Cobra: Haven't you yourself in the past questioned the validity of "giving" other people freedom?

Indeed I have. To liberate a people who have never known freedom only to cast them to the winds of fate will more often than not bring a return to tyranny. But with time and effort cultures can be changed or built which allow for a free society to grow. That seems to be the plan, though errors have been made and it remains to be seen whether it will be brought to fruition.

It's a risky move for a nation facing the prospect of drastic governmental shifts every four years, but we shall see.

REB · 2004-08-31 14:49:30

As for freedom, someone already died for ours back in 1776. Unlike the Iraqis, the American revolutionist were well armed, well fed and their enemy was across the Atlantic. Their major grievance was being taxed to death verse the Iraqis, which was just staying alive

We lost many Americans giving Europe their freedom back in WWII. Germany did not attack America, so should we have stayed out of it?

The Japanese didn’t ask for freedom, but we gave it to them and look at what a powerful country they have become.

It is hard to fight for your freedom when you are being starved, and terrorized by your Gestapo, or KGB, like government. The Iraqis could not get organized and they did not have guns. Meanwhile Saddam and sons tortured, raped, gassed and even shredded the poor Iraqis. Saddam and his sons needed to go, for the good of humanity, they needed to go. Getting rid of them is enough to justify the war for me.

Palomar · 2004-08-31 14:56:50

As for freedom, someone already died for ours back in 1776.
We lost many Americans giving Europe their freedom back in WWII. Germany did not attack America, so should we have stayed out of it?

*Yes. Revolutionary soldiers fought for the freedom of their own nation (ours). Iraq isn't our nation. Aren't there Iraqis who can fight for their own freedom?

Who else's freedom should we fight for next, and why? Should we run this nation's economy down into the ground and sacrifice an entire generation of our young people for every other nation in the stranglehold of a power-hungry dictator? Impossible.

No one fought for our independence from Great Britain but *ourselves.* We had the gumption and backbone to do it.

As for Hitler and his Germany: No, he didn't attack us. But he had to be stopped. I know someone will compare Saddam to Hitler. Saddam was a very evil man who did a lot of terrible things. However, Hitler trumps him with the concentration camps, ovens, invading and *really* taking over other nations, etc., etc. Saddam would probably have liked to have done those things as well...he just didn't have the resources (fortunately!).

Hitler and the Nazis would have wiped every non-Aryan off the face of the globe, would have conquered every nation -- they wouldn't have stopped until they WERE stopped. They were a very aggressively ACTIVE menace -- not on par with Saddam.

--Cindy

REB · 2004-08-31 15:09:01

We did not fight for our freedom, thou. Other people did.

I don't think the Iraqis could fight for their freedom. Like I said, they were starving, they had no weapons and they were scared to even say anything that went against Saddam.

Saddam had his own secrete police that mimicked the Gestapo or KGP that terrorized his people.

You can not revolt if you don’t have the means. Think of American Slaves in the 1800’s.Could they have revolted? No, they were in no situation to. It took others to free them. What about the French under the Nazis. There was a resistance that had arms, but they were not enough. Most French did not revolt. Without America’s help they would have remained Nazis slaves.

You can not revolt if you are living in fear of saying anything. You can not revolt if you do not have any weapons. You can not revolt if you do not have the energy from malnutrition.

The American revolutionist, who died for our freedom, that we inherited, could meet and talked about what to do. They were well fed. They had arms. Their opposing government was across the Atlantic. If the Iraqis had a similar situation, then yes they could have revolted on their own. But they were not. Their situation was a cross between American slaves and those occupied by the Natis.

REB · 2004-08-31 15:14:01

I don’t see a difference between Saddam and Hitler

Saddam did take over Kuwait. He invaded Iran. He threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. He gassed thousands of Kurds with WMD. He had countless others murder. His sons raped woman. One of his sons had a human shredding machine.

Evil people in the same boat as Hitler.

Palomar · 2004-08-31 15:26:43

We did not fight for our freedom, tho. Other people did.

*You're referring to "we" as in those of us born in the 20th and 21st centuries, appreciating the freedoms and liberties people in the 18th century fought for? Sure. I understand. It can't be any other way, since we can't travel through time (yet). But it was still Americans fighting for America's freedom.

Saddam was brutal and evil, as were his sons. I don't dispute that. But let's get back to the first point: Liberating Iraq was not a pretext given for war. If it had been, we'd have ousted the scumbag years ago. Why did we allow him to stay in power for nearly a quarter of a century?

Bin Laden is more of a threat to the U.S.A. than Saddam was. Where is bin Laden? Three years after 9/11 and he's still on the loose.

Also of grave humanitarian concern is Darfur/Sudan. Why don't we hear more about that?

Robert, you're tossing just about every war fought since 1776 into this mix with Iraq. Each war was different, however. Some comparisons can be drawn, others cannot.

I'm glad the Iraqi people are free of Saddam. I wouldn't want anyone to suffer under a heartless animal like him. However, I am SAD that over 800 U.S. military personnel are dead as a result.

--Cindy

REB · 2004-08-31 15:37:56

President Bush said early on that the main reason for ousting Saddam was to bring freedom to the region. He said this was the best way we could defeat the terrorist, by getting rid of the environment that creates them. His vision is to spread freedom through the whole region. A free Middle East will not create terrorist. Why Iraq. After Afghanistan, Iraq was the greatest threat from the Middle East.

Is OBL still alive? If so, he is hiding in a cave somewhere. They are looking for him. If his is alive, the Marines will get him. I am starting to wonder if he is still alive. He is not one to go long without shooting his mouth off.

I am sad that we have lost 800 brave Americans. But they are fighting for a worthy cause and they have saved thousands of Iraqi lives.

Sudan is a mess. One problem at a time.

One day we'll have a united world where everyone has basic human rights. Maybe then we can finally really start to explore space.

MarsDog · 2004-09-02 16:38:23

Liberating Iraq was not a pretext given for war. If it had been, we'd have ousted the scumbag years ago. Why did we allow him to stay in power for nearly a quarter of a century?

US interests, not human idealism, motivated the Iraq war.
For a while, it was convenient to use Saddam against Iran.
Even after the first Gulf War, US wanted Saddam in power.
-
The main need of US is oil, and http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics … p]military spending ensures the supply.

Algol · 2004-09-07 02:26:36

This is what i find most annoying about the iraq fiasco. And this is mostly from the point of view of a brit.

NB im rushing this a bit because im busy.

On septemeber the 11th 2001 the US was attacked directly by al Qaeda. It was an attrocity, article 5 was declared for the first and only time in history, the whole world rallied round to face the threat of international terrorism. We knew where the enemy was, we could see them running around in caves in afghanistan and the taliban made no secret of who they harboured. The world went to war - we invaded afghanistan, removed the taliban and began the process of destroying Al Qaeda itself.

Instead of finishing this job - the only part of afghanistan we secured was kabul and then the US broke away from everybody else dragging along a coalition of the 'willing' to deal with the 'imminent' threat of iraq. We'd been slowly bombing iraq into the stone age for a decade and then suddenly it was an immediate danger and needed to be dealt with even before an international concesus could be found. (Dont even get me started on the pre-texts and thngs that were said and by whom)

The thing is the 'war on terror' is not America versus the World its the WORLD versus TERRORISM. You're not the only country on the target list, you're not the only country to be targeted, and youre not alone - as bush likes to make you think you are. When you went around the UN and dragged us into iraq you shattered the very international effort that legitimised what we were doing (yes cobra there is a legitimacy gained by global consesus) instead of all working together to combat global terrorism we remain a fractured entity unable to move forward until we have repaired the damage. We have litterally lost years of time in the effort.

Im sure removing sadham is good for his people - and nobody is going to advocate that he should stay in power - but thats not what we're doing. We're fighting terrorism not third rate despots.

This is President’s Bush’s vision for the Middle East. He has said that the only way to stop terrorist is to get rid of the environment that breeds them. A suicide bomber has nothing to live for and has nothing to loose. Lets give them something some thing worth living for. Lets give them something to loose. Lets give them freedom.

Except Iraq was the only country in the middle east not to harbour terrosists. Sadham was a secular man (i dont mean that in a positive way) and didnt trust the religous zealotry of the terrorists any more than we would or do.

Also found a few WMD's, not all that much though. No Saddam death rockets with sunbombs on 'em, but a few bon-fide chemical weapons and a pile of "hmm" items. Probably not enough to justify action on its own.

Ironically more WMDs have turned up in the US than in Iraq.

Ok seroiusly, ive a question. Compare Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of the threats they posed against the world (not just the US ) and then compare how much effort has been spent on each one. I think you'll agree the results do not square with what is supposed to be a war on terror

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-07 05:41:20

Instead of finishing this job - the only part of afghanistan we secured was kabul and then the US broke away from everybody else dragging along a coalition of the 'willing' to deal with the 'imminent' threat of iraq.

Here we go with "finish the job" again, as though operations in Iraq preclude activity in Afghanistan. Both can go on without being degraded.

As for securing Afghanistan, establishing control in a city is much easier than securing vast expanses of open field. Taliban and al Quaeda remnants have many places to hide spread over a massive expanse. The Soviets had far more troops in the region and they couldn't do it either, it's extremely difficult. Not to mention that we don't operate in Pakistan, giving the enemy a safe haven across the border for as long as they require it.

(yes cobra there is a legitimacy gained by global consesus)

:laugh: Only to the people sitting at the table telling themsleves it's legitimate. When dealing with international affairs, "legitimacy" is a very subjective term.

Except Iraq was the only country in the middle east not to harbour terrosists.

Iraq under Saddam did harbor terrorists. Abu Nidal, the probable training facility at Salman Pac, al Quaeda ties to Ansar al Islam. "But most of that was in territory Saddam didn't even control" you might be saying. True, but we can't very well go stomping through Iraq with Saddam still in power now can we, the Iraqi army and all those Fedayeen terrorist types running around. Oh, excuse me, "militia." Forgot Iraq didn't harbor terrorists.

But it wasn't about WMD, or harboring terrorists, or links to al Quaeda or even that Saddam is a vicious murdering bastard. It was about creating a beachhead, both military and political, in the Middle East. It's about long-term strategy. Whether or not one agrees with the strategy and whether it is the right one is open to question, but to try and simplify the entire war into some quick soundbite issue that you then try to discredit is a pointless exercise that's about nothing more than partisan politics. By all means attack the war, attack the motives, but let's try to look at what's really going on and not what some kook lefties think makes a good argument.

Algol · 2004-09-07 06:55:29

But it wasn't about WMD, or harboring terrorists, or links to al Quaeda or even that Saddam is a vicious murdering bastard. It was about creating a beachhead, both military and political, in the Middle East. It's about long-term strategy. Whether or not one agrees with the strategy and whether it is the right one is open to question, but to try and simplify the entire war into some quick soundbite issue that you then try to discredit is a pointless exercise that's about nothing more than partisan politics. By all means attack the war, attack the motives, but let's try to look at what's really going on and not what some kook lefties think makes a good argument.

If you truly think that then you have to admit that out both our respective governments lied to us before the war. There is no avoiding that conclusion.

Im not discrediting the idea of removing sadham, or establishing a democratic beachhead in the middleeast (both ideas merit discussion and the latter also represents a sound long term approach) - but thats not what our governments said at the time.

If that was the reason (and once again im not saying it wasnt) then there was plenty of time to build a true coalition instead of splitting the UN and NATO and the particiapnts in the 'war on terror' down the middle, there was no imminent threat and no reason to 'rush in'.

If that was the reason then Bush lied to you to the tune of over 100 billion dollars and the only apology hes given you is his characteristic smirk.

What im saying Cobra is that we can argue ourselves blue about motivations and whether the war was on balance the right or wrong thing to do in terms of results, present and future. But the build-up, execution, aftermath and lessons learnt have been an unmitigated disaster. The coalition/alliance in the war on terror is split with the extremes on both sides unable to trust the motivations behind actions of those on on the other, and the extremists in the middle east have more reasons to hate us than ever before, and have more recruits than they know what to do with.

Thats why the France-US spat was so stupid. (Just because they didnt agree with Bush when he tried to rush the whole Iraq invasion through the UN) After all the America-bashing and the renaming of french-fries to freedom-fries and whining about how you were abandonned after all you did for them in WW2, at the end of the day you have to f**cking grow up and look each other in the eye and remeber that you're allies in the war on terror. That kind of damage is going to take years to repair, years we simply cant afford.

France and America have traditionally been closer than the UK-US special relationship. Where do you think you got the statue of liberty from! Is that going to be renamed too? They were the people who saved you in your own war of independence for christ sakes!

Palomar · 2004-09-07 07:05:34

and the renaming of french-fries to freedom-fries
France and America have traditionally been closer than the UK-US special relationship. Where do you think you got the statue of liberty from! Is that going to be renamed too?

*I'm surprised someone in Congress didn't suggest renaming the Statue of Liberty.

And somehow French Vanilla (as in ice cream flavor especially) was overlooked. Does the congressional cafeteria call it "Freedom Vanilla"?

Yeah, the US-France spat was/is silly. Bill O'Reilly is still calling for boycotting France (we didn't boycott D-Day observances there...thank goodness).

It's time to Move On. BTW, I noticed an article the other day on Yahoo! that bin Laden is close to capture? I hope that's not another mislead.

Yep, we're in this thing *together*. Russia just had a nasty terror strike (referenced in the "A Turning Point?" thread here in Free Chat).

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-09-07 07:20:28

BTW, I noticed an article the other day on Yahoo! that bin Laden is close to capture? I hope that's not another mislead.

Don't hold your breath... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … -news-show...

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-07 07:39:07

I'm a long-time supporter of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and I neither resile from that nor apologise for it. I accept CC's evaluation of the situation that it has created a 'beach-head', of sorts, in the Middle East.
Deposing arab despots, in my view, is not something separate from the war on terror. The islamic leaders in these countries, despite their religious facades, aren't there because they were democratically elected; they seized power. The Middle East is essentially devoid of democracies.
Up until recently, it has been convenient for the West to ignore the 'running sore' of despotic theocracies in these disgraceful places, where dogs are treated better than women. "It's their country", after all; let 'em get on with it.
But, in recent years, the radical wings of these theocracies have been making a nuisance of themselves. For example, they've destroyed a sizeable sector of downtown Manhattan, killing some three thousand people of various nationalities, mainly American, made a pretty good attempt at genocide in East Timor (Australia had to step in to save the East Timorese), killed about 200 people in Bali (many of them young Australians), and, as we speak, are engaged in their own barbaric version of 'ethnic cleansing' in Sudan. Oh yes, and I shouldn't forget the hundreds of men, women, and innocent children butchered in Beslan only the other day.
Activities like these require a great deal of backup in the form of logistical and financial support. Middle Eastern theocracies are the covert backers for this monstrous ideological cancer or, at the very least, create the breeding grounds and home bases for its continued existence. It makes sense to carry the war to the heartland of the enemy, rather than sit around waiting for the next atrocity on your own soil.

Afghanistan was an obvious target because of its terrorist training grounds. Iraq, weakened by the first Gulf War and years of sanctions, was the next most attractive target in this politico-military strategy.
But what now?
It seems likely that Iran will have nuclear weapons in the near future, perhaps as soon as the end of 2005, in spite of its denials. And it has the technology to launch those weapons on missiles. Unless something is done to stop it happening, we will have our first nuclear-armed, Middle Eastern, islamofascist state before you can say "death to the infidels".
Both Iran and Syria have been implicated in terrorism for many years and have provided a base for destabilising influences in Iraq these last twelve months too. It's hard to believe the free world will sit idly by and watch as the likes of them arm themselves with atomic missiles.

I'm wondering whether the hot topic for discussion in the Pentagon right now might not be the latest situation in Iraq at all, but a brand new war in Iran and Syria.
What an impact such a daring pre-emptive strike would have on the psyches of islamic despots everywhere. None of them would ever feel safe in their beds again!
???

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-07 08:19:18

If you truly think that then you have to admit that out both our respective governments lied to us before the war. There is no avoiding that conclusion.

But there's the rub, just because the justifications given for the war didn't represent the real deeper reasons doesn't mean they weren't true. Everyone knew Saddam had WMD up until Bush started to look like he'd do something about it, everyone knew Saddam supported terrorists even if only of the Palestinian variety. Everyone knew that Saddam was an unstable element even for that region. We weren't lied to, we just weren't given the full slate of information, a practice fairly common in wartime and arguably vital if we are to win in this case. Can you seriously imagine a national, even international debate on the best way to culturally and politically reform the entire Middle East? Neo-colonialists they'd scream, imperialist usurpers! End of debate, no action.

As for the France issue, we have diverging interests. France and the US simply aren't going to be as close as they once were, that world no longer exists. Harping on it serves no one, but neither does wallowing in it wondering "oh, what did we do wrong?"

Good points Shaun. Some things we should all consider and keep foremost in our minds.

Palomar · 2004-09-07 08:29:39

*I agree with Shaun overall, even if I'm still doubtful about the necessity of the Iraqi war (except for using Saddam as an example). Afghanistan, yes; I've always been for that.

We've spent so much $ on Iraq. Where will we get the funding and resources if, say, Iran starts getting hostile? Or North Korea (continued)?

**I feel Iraq was/is an "all eggs in 1 basket" scenario.** A great chunk of our $ and resources are devoted to it. I don't think that is wise.

I'm still nervous about North Korea, and believe it represents more of a threat (other than ideological, i.e. militant fundamentalist Islamic "values") than Iraq. We need to reserve our $ and resources in the event of a crisis.

And again, we still have unfinished business (and promises!) in Afghanistan: Building an infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Found this at wikipedia.com site:

"The British Royal Institute of International Affairs reports that if current conditions in Iraq continue, the only likely outcome would be a major civil war which could destabilize the entire Middle East."

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-07 10:20:24

"The British Royal Institute of International Affairs reports that if current conditions in Iraq continue, the only likely outcome would be a major civil war which could destabilize the entire Middle East."

There are many outcomes with roughly equal probability, but this does illustrate what I believe is one of the big errors of the current Administration that may yet come up to bite us.

Why must splitting the country be unthinkable? One democratic Iraq is certainly preferable, but if it must break apart perhaps we should facilitate that and in so doing prevent civil war. Let it break, then work with each of the new nations. It creates some peripheral problems, but should not have been off the table from the outset. We may need to re-examine it, unless we quickly muster the will and resolve to hold a nation with artificial borders together.

Palomar · 2004-09-07 10:28:28

Why must splitting the country be unthinkable?

*Didn't say it was, sir. Just reporting the news bit, sir. :;):
Could have a beneficial/positive outcome, who knows?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&t … urton]Army to rebid Halliburtion Contract Good riddance to the crooks.

--Cindy :;):

Palomar · 2004-09-07 13:12:12

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 06]Muslims "drift toward" Kerry

*Can't help noticing their attempt to play the race card (and drawing back to the white vs black racism issues) again. How very divisive of them.

--Cindy

P.S.: They also purport to speak for the African-American community. I've seen this more than once. Oddly enough, I don't recall a reaction on the part of the community being spoken *for*.

Grypd · 2004-09-07 17:03:53

"The British Royal Institute of International Affairs reports that if current conditions in Iraq continue, the only likely outcome would be a major civil war which could destabilize the entire Middle East."
There are many outcomes with roughly equal probability, but this does illustrate what I believe is one of the big errors of the current Administration that may yet come up to bite us.
Why must splitting the country be unthinkable? One democratic Iraq is certainly preferable, but if it must break apart perhaps we should facilitate that and in so doing prevent civil war. Let it break, then work with each of the new nations. It creates some peripheral problems, but should not have been off the table from the outset. We may need to re-examine it, unless we quickly muster the will and resolve to hold a nation with artificial borders together.

There is the little problem that we the west have few allies in this area and many enemies. Should Iraq split what would happen is our allies would be harmed and our enemies given new ground to operate in.

The Kurds are wanting a large part of one of our best friends there turkey and if we find Iraq splits then the likelihood is we will have another Iran or two. Not to mention the likehood of serious Ethnic cleansing and very bloody civil war.

Dook · 2004-09-07 17:46:42

Cindy I am curious as to how you can support a candidate like John Kerry who fought in Vietnam as if that conflict somehow wins your approval while the current one in Iraq does not. Also, you beraded me when I called the Canadian MP an ugly cow yet you quickly refer to our President as a quack.

It is obvious that your opinions are 100% political. Where are the facts that the war is for oil? Also, what is it exactly that you hate about the current administration? What has President Bush done to you or what has John Kerry done for you?

Palomar · 2004-09-07 19:52:04

Dook: I'll muster up a response later (soon).

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-09-07 19:59:19

I am curious as to how you can support a candidate like John Kerry who fought in Vietnam as if that conflict somehow wins your approval while the current one in Iraq does not.

The difference is that John Kerry did not start Vietnam, he just fought in it. In fact, when he finished his tour of duty, he campaigned against the Vietnam war.

what is it exactly that you hate about the current administration?

What I hate about Bush is that he has a record of lying and bungling. His administration seems far more concerned with appearing to be doing a good job than with actually doing a good job. Reports from government agencies seem to have been slanted to benefit Bush's political agenda since Bush has taken office. I also disagree with him on many key issues.

Kerry seems like an intelligent and thoughtful person who would be a decent choice for president. He had some notable accomplishments during his senate career. I disagree with him on a few issues, but he would almost certainly make a better president than Bush.

Palomar · 2004-09-07 20:40:51

Dook: Cindy I am curious as to how you can support a candidate like John Kerry who fought in Vietnam as if that conflict somehow wins your approval while the current one in Iraq does not.

*Egad...how ironic on -this- day of all days to ask. First of all, I never said I supported the Vietnam War itself; I simply related the fact that Kerry did serve in that war, including actual combat.

Also, you beraded me when I called the Canadian MP an ugly cow yet you quickly refer to our President as a quack.

*Yep. Because the "ugly cow" remark is directed at her physical appearance. To call someone a "quack" -isn't- directed towards physical appearance but rather is a remark on their character -- which is connected to their ideas, decisions, etc. Attack the ideas and decisions, not the physical appearance.

It is obvious that your opinions are 100% political.

*Not sure what you mean by that exactly. I'm an Independent voter (I'll vote for Repubs, Dems, 3rd-party...whoever I think is best suited for the job), so if you're suggesting I walk and talk The Party Line...wrong-o! You're entitled to your opinion of me, of course, but I'm getting the impression you think you know me. :laugh:

Where are the facts that the war is for oil? Also, what is it exactly that you hate about the current administration? What has President Bush done to you or what has John Kerry done for you?

*Actually I've decided I'm -not- voting for Kerry after a week of wrestling with the various issues, coming to terms with some matters, etc. I never completely supported him, simply felt he was a better choice than Bush; in fact, more than once I mentioned here at New Mars that I might sit this election out.

So, if I'm not voting for Kerry that leaves 3 other options:

1. I'm sitting the election out.
2. I'm voting for Bush.
3. I'm voting for a 3rd-party candidate.

And no...I'm not going to say which is -the- decision. (Basically because of the complexity involved in my coming to terms with the decision, etc...and also because it's -my- business ultimately). This has been a very difficult election year; how I think back fondly of those oh-so-easy candidate choices. :hm:

--Cindy

P.S.: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 16]Lawsuit uncovers Bush Nat'l Guard records This just in from Yahoo!

Dook · 2004-09-07 21:16:22

How does President Bush have a record of lying and bungling?

The difference is that John Kerry not only went to war in Vietnam and killed over there but that he then returned and testified to congress that the American soldiers are "Murderers and child killers". I guess maybe he thinks they all were except himself. Also I would respect him more if he chose jail rather than go and kill in a war that he did not believe in.

Calling someone a 'quack' gives no factual evidence of their character and just because the Canadian MP is an ugly cow does not mean that she too is not a good leader.

What I mean by your opinions being 100% political is that you believe without any proof that the war is for oil.

And I would like someone else to vote for as well but it seems there was only one JFK.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-31 14:43:53

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#27 2004-08-31 14:49:30

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#28 2004-08-31 14:56:50

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#29 2004-08-31 15:09:01

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#30 2004-08-31 15:14:01

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#31 2004-08-31 15:26:43

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#32 2004-08-31 15:37:56

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#33 2004-09-02 16:38:23

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#34 2004-09-07 02:26:36

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#35 2004-09-07 05:41:20

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#36 2004-09-07 06:55:29

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#37 2004-09-07 07:05:34

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#38 2004-09-07 07:20:28

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#39 2004-09-07 07:39:07

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#40 2004-09-07 08:19:18

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#41 2004-09-07 08:29:39

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#42 2004-09-07 10:20:24

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#43 2004-09-07 10:28:28

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#44 2004-09-07 13:12:12

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#45 2004-09-07 17:03:53

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#46 2004-09-07 17:46:42

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#47 2004-09-07 19:52:04

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#48 2004-09-07 19:59:19

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#49 2004-09-07 20:40:51

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

#50 2004-09-07 21:16:22

Re: Purple Heart "Badges" at RNC

Board footer