Obama General Discussion - Page 66 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2010, 02:14 AM   #976
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Iraq didn't have weapons stockpiles.
Saddam did not have stockpiles that were found after the invasion. Its still inconclusive to this day what happened to the unaccounted for WMD or whether other WMD was produced and then hidden or dismantled, or not.

Quote:
Iraq retained some of the elements of its weapons programs which may have been able to be reactivated after sanctions were lifted.
The sanctions and weapons embargo had effectively collapsed by 2002. Saddam was able to sell over 3 Billion dollars worth of oil on the Black market in 2002. Syria stopped cooperating with the inspections process along its entire border with Iraq. Banned items and the sell of oil was also getting their the Turkish border, Iranian border and Jordanian border. Elements in both countries were also profitting from the illegal trade.

By the time of the US invasion in March 2003, sanctions only really existed on paper.

Quote:
The intelligence was manipulated to sell the lie that Iraq was an imminent threat.
No one lied, but a case was indeed made to invade Iraq and naturally, as has happened in the past, many dissenting views were not considered in the specific case that was made.

Much of the intelligence was from the UN inspectors as well as Saddam's failure to comply with multiple UN resolutions. The case for war never rested solely on certain bits of intelligence that later turned out not to be true. The case for war involved many issues besides the WMD issue.

Quote:
The sanctions ruined Iraq, and the war took the slaughter even further.
Saddam's uwillingness to work with international community to prevent the sanctions from burdening the Iraqi people was the problem. UN humanitarian aid meant for Iraqi's often ended up being for sale in Jordan or Syria.

Quote:
I don't think it's irrational to think that the regime in Iraq had to bluff against external and internal enemies with ambiguity, and that allowed the Bush administration to invade so quickly.
Its one theory, but the fact remains that the only true threat to the survival of Saddam's regime was a US military invasion. The majority of the internal opposition to Saddam was put down by conventional means through out his quarter century in power.

The best way to prevent a US military invasion was through full compliance and cooperation with the international community on these issues. Saddam did the opposite despite the risk, which is the real sign of his intentions.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:31 AM   #977
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:54 AM
I understand that you want somebody to argue with but you're not worth my time.

I supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq out of my own ignorance. There are things which make me uneasy about being a flat out opponent of the war (the human rights issues under Saddam and an idealistic desire to see secular democracy spread). There are things which make me feel uncomfortable with myself (the massive casualties and failure to achieve the gains in human rights or secular democracy post-war).

I'm not certain that the violence inflicted by sectarian gangs and Islamists can be entirely attributed to the coalition because it may have been an inevitability when the Baathist apparatus collapsed through its own decay.

If you want to justify the invasion on the hypothetical situation of the regime crumbling and unleashing all the horror seen after the invasion, but with the additional element of regional powers invading and carving up the country then be honest and do it - I think I could.

If you want to justify it because it allows America to have a staging post for more attacks in other countries then defend that position.

If you genuinely believe that America is able to use imperial power in a way that can undermine the politico-religious ideology of Islamist terrorism then defend that position.

As it stands you repeat Bush-era talking points ad infinitum as if they constitute a valid argument (hint: they don't).
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:39 AM   #978
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I understand that you want somebody to argue with but you're not worth my time.

I supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq out of my own ignorance. There are things which make me uneasy about being a flat out opponent of the war (the human rights issues under Saddam and an idealistic desire to see secular democracy spread). There are things which make me feel uncomfortable with myself (the massive casualties and failure to achieve the gains in human rights or secular democracy post-war).

I'm not certain that the violence inflicted by sectarian gangs and Islamists can be entirely attributed to the invasion because it may have been an inevitability when the Baathist apparatus collapsed.

If you want to justify the invasion on the hypothetical situation of the regime crumbling and unleashing all the horror seen after the invasion, but with the additional element of regional powers invading and carving up the country then be honest and do it - I think I could.

If you want to justify it because it allows America to have a staging post for more attacks in other countries then defend that position.

If you genuinely believe that America is able to use imperial power in a way that can undermine the politico-religious ideology of Islamist terrorism then defend that position.

As it stands you repeat Bush-era talking points ad infinitum as if they constitute a valid argument (hint: they don't).
Wow.

I was a real idiot for thinking you were defending the war!

Saddam was not a good guy, in fact he was an evil bastard, and that is undebatable.

However, as you know well, if human rights abuses were a reason to start a war, we'd be in Congo, Liberia, Sudan, Burma, the list goes on. And many of these people make Saddam look like a rookie hit man.

As for the suggestion that the collapse of Saddam absent an invasion(which all indicators say, this would probably have happened) would have led to the same chaos, I will just say that we wouldn't have had Rumsfeld disband the entire army and police force and they would have stood up for a government that was not Saddam. The insurgency and later sectarian violence that Iran and Saudi and AQaeda joined was a direct result of disbanding the Army and giving a lot of people with military training no job and a reason to be pissed at Americans.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:48 AM   #979
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:54 AM
That was a response to Strongbow and not you (this may have happened because you're blocking it).

I don't disagree with anything in your post.

The only reason that there are interests in Iraq is because of the oil, and if there those interests happened to motivate something positive then it could be supportable.

But it's clear that the outcome of the war was much worse for Iraq than waiting for Saddam to die or cutting a deal.

I was just acknowledging my position, and stating what makes me uncomfortable about both sides. At the same time fence-sitting is weak, and given the effects of Iraq I don't think I'd support any other invasions and "nation building" attempts.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:55 AM   #980
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Well that was perfectly reasonable, and of course, that provides the explanation for why Saddam only verifiably destroyed 90-95% of the WMD.

He wanted to bluff against the region, you are exactly right, but even that was a miscalculation on his part as I saw no one in the region too worried about him after 1991. Ask de facto thriving democracies of the 1990s like Jordan and Lebanon if they were afraid of Saddam. More like they laughed at him, running the entire place into the ground and unable to even feed his people.
Why did Jordan violate the sanctions regime and begin helping to buy and sell Iraqi oil illegally? Why was Jordan allowing UN humanitarian aid meant for the Iraqi people to be resold by Saddam in Jordan? If Jordan has no fear of Saddam why did they start to cooperate with Saddam against the UN sanctions?

Do you understand where Lebanon is on the map? They don't border Iraq and have hundreds of miles of Syrian land between them and Iraq. Plus far more immediate problems in the country as well as Syrian troops in the country to contend with back then.

Quote:
But calculate he did nonetheless, and he thought that was how to keep the region in some kind of ambiguous fear. Whatever, he had an inflated ego(obviously) and was convinced of his superior mind and judgement, so its easy to see how he actually believed that people in the region were afraid of him.
The other countries in the region were indeed concerned.

Lets take a factual look at the conventional military balance in the region as of 2002:

MANPOWER:
Iraq - 424,000
Kuwait - 15,500
Bahrain - 11,000
Saudi Arabia - 201,500
Iran - 513,000
Jordan - 100,240
Syria - 321,000

MAIN BATTLE TANKS:
Iraq - 2,800
Kuwait - 385
Bahrain - 106
Saudi Arabia - 1,055
Iran - 1,565
Jordan - 1,058
Syria - 3,500

ARMORED PERSONAL CARRIERS:
Iraq - 3,700
Kuwait - 506
Bahrain - 306
Saudi Arabia - 4,640
Iran - 1,450
Jordan - 1,225
Syria - 4,885

ARTILLERY:
Iraq - 2,050
Kuwait - 86
Bahrain - 84
Saudi Arabia - 438
Iran - 2,395
Jordan - 531
Syria - 2,080

TOTAL COMBAT AIRCRAFT:
Iraq - 316
Kuwait - 82
Bahrain - 34
Saudi Arabia - 348
Iran - 283
Jordan - 101
Syria - 589



As shown above, there was still a major conventional imbalance in several area's when it came to the forces, especially when your just considering the Persian Gulf area, or just Kuwait VS Iraq.

Quote:
There was no chance sanctions were ever going to be lifted, HW Bush, Clinton and W Bush said as much, the sanctions were going nowhere until Saddam was gone. This whole thing was not about disarmament but about regime change.( I saw your edit, and therein lays the answer to your question as to why sanctions and no fly zones were kept in place)
No not officially. But what you don't seem to understand is that for an effective sanctions and weapons regime to remain in place against Iraq, it required the cooperation of all of Iraq's neighbors. By 2002 though, Syria had ended all inspections along its border with Iraq and was actively helping Saddam sell his oil illegally. Jordan was doing the same and reselling humanitarian aid meant for the Iraqi people. The sanctions were leaking along the Turkish and Iranian borders as well with massive increases in Truck traffic. Even France, Russia and China broke the sanctions. Russia and France started international flights into Iraq violating the sanctions. China was helping Iraq with military enhancements to its air defense systems.

So the fact that the United States was not going to officialy lift sanctions did not matter at all. Without the support of all of Iraq's neighbors and several other members of the international community, keeping sanctions in place on Iraq would be impossible, even if on paper it was still official.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 03:04 AM   #981
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:54 AM
You're being dishonest by not using the condition or age of Iraqi military equipment.

Those figures are demonstrably rubbish given how easily the coalition toppled the regime and destroyed the much hyped Iraqi Republican Guard.

You're not contributing anything new to any discussion and should be treated like a troll.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 03:09 AM   #982
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 10:54 AM
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You're being dishonest by not using the condition or age of Iraqi military equipment.

Those figures are demonstrably rubbish given how easily the coalition toppled the regime and destroyed the much hyped Iraqi Republican Guard.


Run down like a bunch of Boy Scouts any time they were confronted, needed 8 years and a ton of American military aid to fight a brand new Iranian government to just a stalemate.

Sounds like the much feared Iraqi Army with their great and overwhelming conventional power presence.

Those guys were good, real good, let me tell you.

If they were showing up at my door, I'd laugh and laugh some more.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 03:09 AM   #983
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Back onto something that isn't about the Iraq war...

Nearly $30 million stolen from Homebuyer Credit: report - Yahoo! Finance

Charming.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 03:38 AM   #984
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You're being dishonest by not using the condition or age of Iraqi military equipment.
I could break down the age of equipment for each of the countries but that would take more time. Iraq is far from being the only country on the list that had "aged" equipment.

In terms of condition, the Iraqi military was far more active in both training as well as surpressing opposition to the regime than most of its neighbors, especially Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. That alone proves the condition and battle worthiness of much of the force.

Quote:
Those figures are demonstrably rubbish given how easily the coalition toppled the regime and destroyed the much hyped Iraqi Republican Guard.
The figures are facts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and were confirmed by the US military during the invasion. The above list compares the countries in the region, it is not a comparison to a large scale deployed US/British invasion force.

The swiftness of the US/British victory does not change the fact of the potential threat posed by the size and quality of Iraq's forces in an offensive mode striking at specific targets in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, especially with a US force in the region that was a tiny fraction of the invasion force. Plus, this is without considering the whole WMD issue which would greatly complicate the balance.

Quote:
You're not contributing anything new to any discussion and should be treated like a troll.
I'm offering my opinion on issues being discussed. There is nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong though with making personal comments against another person, obviously because you disagree with them.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 03:50 AM   #985
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
[QUOTE=U2387;6813469]
Quote:



Run down like a bunch of Boy Scouts any time they were confronted, needed 8 years and a ton of American military aid to fight a brand new Iranian government to just a stalemate.
Yep, thats exactly what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. They were run down by the Kuwaiti army like a bunch of boy scouts.

Think about the size of the coalition that the United States built up in order to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait.

Also, it was the SOVIET UNION, NOT the United States that was the primary supplier of Iraq during the 1980s.

In addition, the Iraq war ended in a draw in name only. Iraq was the clear victor when you look at the balance of forces in 1989, which I can print out here if you would like.

Quote:
Sounds like the much feared Iraqi Army with their great and overwhelming conventional power presence.

Those guys were good, real good, let me tell you.

If they were showing up at my door, I'd laugh and laugh some more.
Well, you would not be laughing if you experienced what several million Iraqi's, Iranians, or Kuwaiti's experienced, who were either killed, wounded, tortured, or raped by Saddam's military from 1979 through 2003.

Most knowledgable people including President Clinton did not consider it anything to laugh about either.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 04:01 AM   #986
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Thats why all the resolutions talk is so disingenuous- not only was 95% verifiably destroyed and the other 5% verified by UN Inspectors as worthless goo by the time period in question-but disarmament was just an excuse for the real objective of the sanctions in the first place, regime change.
The resolutions involved multiple issues of which WMD was one. The chief issue is Saddam's full cooperation and compliance as that is the best indication of his willingness to cooperate with the international community in the future. The 5% you talk of was more than enough to force the entire coalition to suit up up in full MOPP gear for protection during the duration of the invasion.

Quote:
Fine in and of itself, but HW, Clinton and the Iraqi liberation act of 1998 made very, very clear that regime change in and of itself was not to be implemented by spilling the blood of American soldiers in a useless war.
George Bush Sr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush NEVER ruled out the use of military force in any capacity against Saddam in order to protect the United States and its interest in the region!

Every time Bill Clinton sent the air force into Iraq to strike targets, or pilots were patrolling the no fly zone, there was a RISK of "spilling the blood of US military personal!

Quote:
Lets pretend for a second sanctions were lifted, that does not mean that Saddam would have been able to reconstitute the programs. All of his factories were destroyed, and any and all attempts to reconstitute the capacity would have been eminently detectable by intelligence agencies. Then, the facilities get taken out and the sanctions restored.
All of Saddam's factories were not destroyed, and multiple ones were found that had the capability to produce WMD. As for US intelligence agencies being able to detect WMD, lets look at what we know. Prior to the first gulf war, most of the assessments on Saddam's WMD capabilities were proved wrong. His capabilities were shown to be far more extensive once the inspectors got a look, and instead of being 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon, it was shown that he was only 6 months to a year away from having one back in 1991.

Then of course, there were the assesment on Saddam's WMD prior to the 2003 war, and this time none were found. So clearly, dectecting WMD accurately is very difficult, and the advantage is clealy with the country attempting to produce and conceal the production of such weapons.

US intelligence is currently not confident that they know where all of Iran's nuclear facilities are, let alone places where warheads may be under development. Thats why the whole issue of airstrikes against Iran is seen as not being able to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. The US could strike and hit multiple targets, but obviously miss many ones it simply does not know exist. In addition, anything struck can be rebuilt and hidden better.

Finally, the sanctions regime required the efforts of multiple countries that bordered Iraq. Its already been shown that the sanctions and weapons embargo against Iraq started taking on water after 1998 and had essentially collapsed by 2002.

Quote:
Of course the likely course of action would have been quite different- sanctions lifted, Saddam just yawns and tries to hold together a country he was losing his grasp on and Iraq eventually fades into God knows what.
Well, by far the best indication of what would be in Saddam's future after the collapse of sanctions and the international community doing nothing about it can be found from Saddam's past, invasions and attacks on four different countries, the attempt to annex countries and land near Iraq, the manufacture, deployment and use of WMD against his own citizens and the citizens and soldiers of other countries, the purchase of large numbers of military hardware from abroad with Iraq's vast oil wealth! A future that would promise chaos for the region and the world.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 04:28 AM   #987
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Baker was writing op eds in the Wall Street Journal with Scowcroft cautioning Bush in 2002 not to do something stupid and invade Iraq before the facts are in.
Baker supported the removal of Saddam then and still supports that course of action today!

Quote:
Powell was telling anyone who would listen how nuts this push for Iraq was in private conversations in the run up to the war.

Again, this is liberal myth dispelled by Powell himself when he appeared on Barbara Walters show in 2005 and clearly stated that he believed removing Saddam was still the right course of action. He said that when "President Bush stated it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violation of the UN resolutions, I was right there with him on the use of military force"!

Quote:
He went along out of a sense of duty, but he had the power to stop it and his endorsement of Obama shows anyone blessed with the gift of logic(which excludes some people...note to self- don't mention who) that he regretted that decision.
Well, show us one qoute where Powell regrets removing Saddam from power! Just one!

He stated clearly when he was not in the job anymore in 2005 that removing Saddam was the right course of action, and he has never deviated from that position since then, regardless of voting for Obama in 2008.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 05:04 AM   #988
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I understand that you want somebody to argue with but you're not worth my time.
Thanks for sharing that with us. This personal opinion of me is just one more thing that has nothing do with the issues.

Quote:
I supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq out of my own ignorance. There are things which make me uneasy about being a flat out opponent of the war (the human rights issues under Saddam and an idealistic desire to see secular democracy spread). There are things which make me feel uncomfortable with myself (the massive casualties and failure to achieve the gains in human rights or secular democracy post-war).
Well, there are much more important and vital security issues to consider when thinking about the removal of Saddam although I agree that human rights and seeing democracy spread are important.

But there has been huge gains in the area of democracy in Iraq since the removal of Saddam, but this was always going to be a process that would take years if not decades to achieve.

The level of casualties although terrible pales in comparison to what was experienced under Saddam through his wars and the mass execution of his own citizens.

Quote:
I'm not certain that the violence inflicted by sectarian gangs and Islamists can be entirely attributed to the coalition because it may have been an inevitability when the Baathist apparatus collapsed through its own decay.
The coalition made mistakes early on that made the rebuild of Iraq more difficult, but I think some level of violence was inevitable.


Quote:
If you want to justify the invasion on the hypothetical situation of the regime crumbling and unleashing all the horror seen after the invasion, but with the additional element of regional powers invading and carving up the country then be honest and do it - I think I could.

If you want to justify it because it allows America to have a staging post for more attacks in other countries then defend that position.

If you genuinely believe that America is able to use imperial power in a way that can undermine the politico-religious ideology of Islamist terrorism then defend that position.

As it stands you repeat Bush-era talking points ad infinitum as if they constitute a valid argument (hint: they don't).
The United States did not invade Iraq to have some staging ground to invade other countries or because it thought that Iraq was about to crumble into a civil war or to undermine Islamist terrorism.

There was a reason the United States and its allies passed multiple resolutions against Saddam after the 1991 war, as well as constructing a large sanctions and weapons embargo regime. It was believed that least costly way of dealing with Saddam at the time was to contain him in a box and that within 5 years he would be gone from events within the country.

Unfortunately, Saddam survived and tightened his grip on the country. Then the sanctions and weapons embargo against him started to take on water and finally collapsed.

Saddam had to either be contained or removed, and with the effective end of the sanctions and weapons embargo by 2002, containment of Saddam was impossible. Saddam's strength after this point would only continue to grow do to Iraq's oil wealth. Saddam would quicly or gradually rebuild his conventional forces, rebuild his WMD capacities. With each passing month or year, Saddam would grow stronger and any invasion to remove him would become more difficult, costly and bloody. The risk of Saddam invading another country or attacking another country would grow.

This is precisely the senerio that the international community was dedicated to preventing after the 1991 Gulf War. There were only two options, large scale containment or regime change. Containment was tried but it ultimately fell apart, leaving regime change as the only option.

Thats the basic history in a nutshell, and nothing that has happened since Saddam's removal changes any of it.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 05:23 AM   #989
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post

The only reason that there are interests in Iraq is because of the oil, and if there those interests happened to motivate something positive then it could be supportable.
Its the oil in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain that the United States has been concerned about protecting for 60 years now. Saddam, his past actions and behavior, and capabilities were a major threat to this. Containment was tried and failed, which is why Saddam had to be removed.

Quote:
But it's clear that the outcome of the war was much worse for Iraq than waiting for Saddam to die or cutting a deal.
What is that based on? Certainly not Saddam's past history as ruler of Iraq. That involved repeated invasions and attacks on countries in the region. The use of WMD against his own people and the citizens and soldiers of other countries on a massive scale. The huge threat to much of the planets energy supply from being controlled by Saddam. It would also involve the continued annual state murder of citizens and military personal throughout the country that Saddam would suddenly deem to be a threat.

Saddam's own death would only result in his replacement by one of his sons. The Regime would indeed continue and the evidence from history shows would be ever bit the threat that it was in the past if not more so.

The only way you could live with Saddam is if he could be effectively contained and cut off from the rest of the world. But that project unfortunately fell apart.

Quote:
At the same time fence-sitting is weak, and given the effects of Iraq I don't think I'd support any other invasions and "nation building" attempts.
While many mistakes were made and there has been much loss of life, the worst senerio's never even came close to happening. The level of casualties pales in comparison to the Iran/Iraq war or even Saddam's slaughter of Shia and Kurds in the months after the 1991 Gulf War.

Your also forgetting the enormous security value in removing the largest aggressor and greatest threat to the vital countries in the region like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

As the new Iraqi government emerges and the violence continues to drop over time in Iraq, and the country continues to manage more of its own security without the aid of foreign troops, more people will come to conclude that removing Saddam was indeed the right course of action.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 10:59 AM   #990
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:54 AM
and after all that, we fail to get any sort of meaningful intellectual exchange of ideas.

droning on and on into a megaphone isn't making an argument.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com