Home | Community | Message Board


Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Military casualties
    #4586751 - 08/27/05 08:04 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Here's something relevant to Hagbard Celine's comments in the thread about Michael Yon's reporting (the thread I refer to can be found here http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4580133/an/0/page/0 )

Hagbard Celine said in one of his posts in that thread, "Not to mention the realization that disparity of what's being reported around the world about Iraq and what's actually happening is far more egregious than I previously fathomed."

Indeed it is. And that deliberate spinning by the anti-war mainstream media of what is actually transpiring in Iraq has serious consequences --

From http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011443.php -- (all bolding is by Phred)




Some Thoughts on Casualties in Times of War and Peace

It is universally acknowledged that public support for the Iraq war is eroding. Some of the polls supporting this claim are faulty because they are based on obviously misleading internal data, but the basic point cannot be denied: many Americans, possibly even a majority, have turned against the war.

This should hardly be a surprise. On the contrary, how could it be otherwise? News reporting on the war consists almost entirely of itemizing casualties. Headlines say: "Two Marines killed by roadside bomb." Rarely do the accompanying stories--let alone the headlines that are all that most people read--explain where the Marines were going, or why; what strategic objective they and their comrades were pursuing, and how successful they were in achieving it; or how many terrorists were also killed. For Americans who do not seek out alternative news sources like this one, the war in Iraq is little but a succession of American casualties. The wonder is that so many Americans do, nevertheless, support it.

The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism. Partly this omission is due to laziness or incomprehension, but I think it is mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp, has always been the principal purpose of the Iraq war, it would take the sting out of their "No large stockpiles of WMDs!" theme.

One wonders how past wars could have been fought if news reporting had consisted almost entirely of a recitation of casualties. The D-Day invasion was one of the greatest organizational feats ever achieved by human beings, and one of the most successful. But what if the only news Americans had gotten about the invasion was that 2,500 allied soldiers died that day, with no discussion of whether the invasion was a success or a failure, and no acknowledgement of the huge strategic stakes that were involved? Or what if such news coverage had continued, day by day, through the entire Battle of Normandy, with Americans having no idea whether the battle was being won or lost, but knowing only that 54,000 Allied troops had been killed by the Germans?

How about the Battle of Midway, one of the most one-sided and strategically significant battles of world history? What if there had been no "triumphalism"--that dreaded word--in the American media's reporting on the battle, and Americans had learned only that 307 Americans died--never mind that the Japanese lost more than ten times that many--without being told the decisive significance of the engagement?

Or take Iwo Jima, the iconic Marine Corps battle. If Americans knew only that nearly 7,000 Marines lost their lives there, with no context, no strategy, and only sporadic acknowledgement of the heroism that accompanied those thousands of deaths, would the American people have continued the virtually unanimous support for our country, our soldiers and our government that characterized World War II?

We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing. This is why we honor our service members' courage. For a soldier, sailor or Marine, "courage" isn't an easily-abused abstraction--"it took a lot of courage to vote against the farm bill"--it's a requirement of the job.

Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep1998/n09291998_9809295.html That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq "on President Bush's watch." As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.

**************************************************

More at the link.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Military casualties [Re: Phred]
    #4587189 - 08/27/05 01:28 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

News reporting on the war consists almost entirely of itemizing casualties

Rarely Iraqi casualties tho.

mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp

Bullshit detector. Iraq wasn't a "terrorist swamp" until Bush launched his invasion. Whether it's a "terrorist swamp" now or it's simply Iraqis fighting an occupier is hard to tell. The vast bulk of journalism in Iraq is from embedded journalists who rarely see life outside of an American fortress.

We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.



What do you want them to report? The success in dismantling Iraq of WMD?

Iraq is so desperately unstable and dangerous that if journalists venture outside the american fortress they run a high risk of being killed. What exactly can they "report"? Do you want them to simply report propaganda stories the american army feeds them?

And lets face reality - if the media truly was anti-war, Bush would be in a court of law right now answering questions about hyping intelligence to launch an illegal war that killed thousands of innocent people.

In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.


Is this moron trying to say he can see no difference between dying in an accident and being shot?

Accidents are a normal part of life. Getting shot while occupying Iraq is NOT a normal part of life.

They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.


Give that man a ceegar  :rolleyes:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Military casualties [Re: Alex213]
    #4587269 - 08/27/05 02:03 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

Rarely Iraqi casualties tho.




Incorrect. Far more Iraqis than coalition troops are being killed by car bombs and drive-bys on Iineups of people waiting to join the Iraqi Defense forces. The media reports the numbers on those, too. Over a hundred Iraqis killed by this attack on a mosque, 48 Iraqis killed by that car bomb, etc.

What they almost never report is the number of terrorists killed and captured.

Quote:

Iraq wasn't a "terrorist swamp" until Bush launched his invasion.




Could Iraq under Hussein have accurately been categorized as a terrorist "swamp"? Perhaps not. Safe haven and training facility for terrorists? Certainly. But the sentence you butchered refers not to Iraq per se as a terrorist swamp, but the Arab world as a whole. A democratic Iraq will have transformative effects on the Arab world as a whole -- the effects will not be limited to within Iraq's borders.

Quote:

What do you want them to report?




Everything that's going on that is not classified information. Chrenkoff does it. Yon does it. Other milblogs do it. Troops returning home after their tour do it. The mainstream media doesn't do it.

Quote:

What exactly can they "report"? Do you want them to simply report propaganda stories the american army feeds them?




And who do you think feeds them the number of dead after each attack by the dead-enders? Why is it they have no compunction about reporting the numbers of dead provided to them by Centcom briefings, but balk at reporting the number of schools built, hospitals re-opened, pipelines repaired, electrical generating stations brought back online, amount of weapons and bomb-making materials seized in a raid, number of enemy captured or killed in various operations -- all provided to them in those same Centcom briefings?

All that information comes from the military. Why the selectivity in what gets published?

You evade the central point of the article and instead nitpick trivia. The point is that the mainstream media deliberately ignores the big picture. And because of this selective reporting, their audience hasn't enough information to make an informed opinion on what is going on in Iraq.

It's like listening on the radio to a boxing match where the announcer reports enthusiastically every blow landed by his favored fighter but keeps entirely quiet about the pounding his lad is receiving in return. People in the audience can't be blamed for thinking, "Holy crap! That other guy might as well throw in the towel tight now before he's permanently crippled or killed!"










Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: Military casualties [Re: Phred]
    #4587413 - 08/27/05 03:01 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

There is no proof that the invasion and occupation for Iraq is benefiting the average American who is footing the bill or the soldiers who have given life and limb. The successful conversion of Iraq to a western style peaceful democracy is a promise of politicians, nothing more. Current trends of democratization point to the increase of power of the Shia majority and cozy relations between them and neighboring Iran's Shia run government, possibly leading to Iraq's own development as a democratic theocracy. The 'argument' that 'we' are 'draining the terrorist swamp' is totally unfounded. If you care to look at the breeding of terrorists as you do mosquitoes, the swamp is an interventionist foreign policy mixed with religious fundamentalism. The Iraq adventure does nothing to address these issues in a positive manner. The one thing we have the greatest handle on and can most easily alter, foreign policy, is going in the wrong direction.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Military casualties [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4587456 - 08/27/05 03:15 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

The 'argument' that 'we' are 'draining the terrorist swamp' is totally unfounded. If you care to look at the breeding of terrorists as you do mosquitoes, the swamp is an interventionist foreign policy mixed with religious fundamentalism.




The above statements are those about which reasonable people can disagree. Ten years from now, or maybe five, things will be more clear. But Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorists.




Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: Military casualties [Re: Phred]
    #4587475 - 08/27/05 03:24 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
But Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorists.



When did Iraq commit terrorist attacks against the U.S.?


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Military casualties [Re: Phred]
    #4587511 - 08/27/05 03:36 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
But Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorists.





Occasional Islamic posturing and payments to Palestinian suicide bomber's families by a fake Muslim two-bit dictator don't scare me that much. Concerted efforts by stateless terrorists who are highly motivated do scare me.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Military casualties [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4587524 - 08/27/05 03:39 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 894
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
Re: Military casualties [Re: Phred]
    #4587529 - 08/27/05 03:41 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep1998/n09291998_9809295.html That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.


Hehe, that makes it look as if peace time training is more dangerous than actual combat. The thing is, if we're talking about rates here, you should relate that to the total number of soldiers involved, and express things in percentages. If we're talking only ground forces, the US army has 495,000 soldiers. There are about 135,000 of them in Irak. (These figures may not be very precise, but they should do to support the reasoning.) This means we have an (accidental) death rate of 0.26% per year in peace time, and a war time death rate in Irak of about 0.53% per year.

While that is still very low, it is just the opposite of what was claimed above. The war time death rate in Irak exceeds the rate of peace time deaths by a ratio of just over two to one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: Military casualties [Re: Phred]
    #4587558 - 08/27/05 03:53 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
The above statements are those about which reasonable people can disagree. Ten years from now, or maybe five, things will be more clear. But Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorists.



I am curious on your thoughts in regards to Afghanistan. We've lost complete control of that country and we've been there four years with no signs of improvement.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Military casualties [Re: bukkake]
    #4587586 - 08/27/05 04:07 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

bukkake said:
Quote:

Phred said:
The above statements are those about which reasonable people can disagree. Ten years from now, or maybe five, things will be more clear. But Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorists.



I am curious on your thoughts in regards to Afghanistan. We've lost complete control of that country and we've been there four years with no signs of improvement.




Are you really saying it is not improved from 4 years ago when the Taliban ruled and Bin Laden plotted in safety? Some people are just overwhelmingly obtuse.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: Military casualties [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4587610 - 08/27/05 04:15 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

The country is in such horrible shape the US turned to the Taliban to re-take the country in 2003.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Military casualties [Re: bukkake]
    #4587790 - 08/27/05 05:22 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

That's what I thought, a troll.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: Military casualties [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4587795 - 08/27/05 05:26 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

You must be a tweaker.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF14Ag01.html

"You mean. The United States has looked at installing a dictactorship into a country?" I know that can come as a surprise to you.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Military casualties [Re: bukkake]
    #4587800 - 08/27/05 05:28 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

The country is in such horrible shape the US turned to the Taliban to re-take the country in 2003.




What the fuck? I guess know we know why you put "2+2=5" between your username and your avatar.

You want to explain that last?

The reason you hear almost nothing from the MSM out of Afghanistan is that the country is doing just fine. Al Reuters and AP and the rest of the MSM have nothing out of Afghanistan they can use to embarass Bush, so they pretty much ignore it. And of course as you recall, the invasion of Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned operation. The UN calls the shots there, not Bush. It was the UN who arranged the last election there, and will supervise the upcoming one.

Every now and then something happens in Afghanistan the MSM simply can't ignore so they'll write a paragraph or two about it then ignore it again till next month.

Here's a bit of news about the upcoming Afghanistan election: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011485.php

Parliamentary Elections in Afghanistan

Liberals who argue that democracy can't succeed in a pluralistic, predominantly Muslim country like Iraq ignore the stunningly obvious example of Afghanistan. Parliamentary elections will be held there next month; I like this Reuters photo of a print shop in Kabul that is busily cranking out election posters:



Reuters' caption reads:

An Afghan worker prints posters of candidates in the country's upcoming parliamentary elections at a shop in Kabul August 27, 2005. Printers in the Afghan capital are raking in business as candidates in next month's elections order tens of thousands of posters to paste up across the country.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: Military casualties [Re: Phred]
    #4587820 - 08/27/05 05:37 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
What the fuck?

You want to explain that last?



There's a link up there, though I do not unequivocally believe it, because I don't believe anything.

http://afghanwomensmission.org/index.php

http://afghanwomensmission.org/campaigns/photo_essay.php

That is how things are in Afghanistan, currently. "Straight from the horse's mouth."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Military casualties [Re: bukkake]
    #4587957 - 08/27/05 06:14 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

This is your horse's mouth that you believe? From your second link.

"In a recent trip to Afghanistan, Co-Directors of the Afghan Women's Mission, Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls found that the situation of women and girls was extremely dire."

Two inveterate Bush haters who don't live there.

Articles from these two beauties, or, rather, I should say horse parts not on the input end of the alimentary canal.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5966

"If Kerry wins in November it will definitely be a blow to the ultra-fascist Neoconservatives and their allies. But those who are interested in long term radical social change, an admittedly marginal slice of the population, should not waste their time and effort in propping up the Democratic Party elite and their Republican-like agenda."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1007-31.htm

"Jim Ingalls and Sonali Kolhatkar are Co-Directors of the Afghan Women's Mission, a US-based non-profit organization that works in solidarity with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). Jim is a staff scientist at the Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology. Sonali is the host and co-producer of Uprising, a daily public affairs program on KPFK Pacifica Radio. Together they have published many articles on Afghanistan and are working on their first book about US policy in Afghanistan."

Two hardcore American leftist whackjobs are your "horse's mouth" sources for information about the state of affairs in Afghanistan? You don't even really try. Buy a fucking clue.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Classified
Re: Military casualties [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4588020 - 08/27/05 06:37 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

I can then assume the credible sources cited, such as UN reports, were the works of American leftist whackjobs?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4284901.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4310863.stm

I wouldn't doubt it if you don't find the BBC very credible, either. After all, it is not Fox News or a right-wing pro-war blog. And it is not Sean Hannity covering the story.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Military casualties [Re: bukkake]
    #4588027 - 08/27/05 06:44 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

From your first link:

"However at the same time the country's first ever development survey did find there had been remarkable progress.

Recent elections and economic growth were both seen as grounds for optimism."


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: Military casualties [Re: bukkake]
    #4588037 - 08/27/05 06:49 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

From your second link:

"More than 600 people, many of them children, have died in a prolonged bout of bad winter weather in Afghanistan that has included unprecedented snowfall, heavy rain and below freezing temperatures."

Yep, strikes me as a Halliburton weather control program. Winter? I didn't even check the date on this. March 17. Give up. You don't even read your own shit.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Deadly Truth of Imperialism
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Eric 2,954 81 11/06/03 08:36 PM
by Anonymous
* Interesting Read on Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there vintage_gonzo 469 0 07/07/07 12:43 PM
by vintage_gonzo
* Afghanistan: The war with no end Alex213 654 10 11/16/05 12:23 PM
by exclusive58
* Victory impossible in Afghanistan: senior British commander Cannashroom 263 0 10/05/08 02:34 PM
by Cannashroom
* US fires top general in Afghanistan as war worsens lonestar2004 466 15 05/13/09 03:00 PM
by Falcon91Wolvrn03
* Afghanistan: We're licked riceandpeas 240 1 10/06/08 07:09 AM
by Seuss
* Mandatory Military Service?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Gijith 4,169 107 05/07/06 01:01 PM
by Syle
* US Military Planned to Terrorize US Cities RonoS 481 1 06/13/05 04:30 PM
by J4S0N

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,467 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:

Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.127 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.