Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iraq Rant  
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 951 times:

I'm a little sick of all this US vs. Europe on Iraq BS threads, so here's a bitter pill to swallow:

We're in Iraq to restore balance to the Middle East, of course, we wouldn't be there if we didn't have to create freaks like OBL to keep Russia from taking over the Middle East, who wouldn't have been there unless there was a Cold War, which wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't applied it's use of Nuclear energy to a bomb, which wouldn't have happened if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, which wouldn't have happened if not for Hitler.

So, The next time some jackhole named Adolph pops his head out of the ground and says "I fart in your general direction", take out a gun and put a bullet in his stupid freakin' head rather than sit back and say "that's their problem". Stop blaming us for 50 years of cleanup that would have been resolved had Europe not been so passive.

We aren't ugly Americans, but we sure as hell aren't going to take crap from anyone.

You don't think Communism and Capitalism can't co-exist??? Look at the US and China. There's your proof. Now lets get this over with and go on with life.

[Edited 2004-06-12 01:12:20]

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2003, 356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 930 times:

" if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, which wouldn't have happened if not for Hitler."
Sorry to butt in early, but Hitler got elected cause Germany was crippled after the first world war and he offered the German people their self esteem and military might back (albeit he was an evil bastard, but they were desperate). Japan had designs on the far east anyway and was building an Empire. By the time they attacked Pearl Harbor they had been fighting a war in China for about 6 years and attacking British and French colonies during that time.

As far as Europe being passive. At the end of the nineteenth century Britain basically ran 2/3rds of the planet and has the biggest empire in history. That of course started to be given away, either by Britain itself or through struggles for independence. Europeans in general from this time, all the way through the first half of the twentieth century were fighting in various parts of the globe. Including (along with Americans) the first global war of 1914-18

Britain was fighting Hitler well into 1940, along with Poland, free France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Whilst the USA were selling us arms, or when the cash ran out were lending us the money to buy more arms from them, even though at the time they had refused to fight with us. Hitler declared war on the USA because he hoped that Japan would attack Russia and ease the pressure on the eastern front, but Tokyo refused and the gamble backfired.

America sacrificed a hell of a lot, for which I'll always be grateful. but so did Russia (they took more casualties and killed more German troops, than any other nation), so did the UK, where we had a 9/11 every night (all of our major cities sustained heavy bombing) between 1940 to 1944, and still in the early part of 1945 v1 and v2 rockets were hitting London and killing scores of civilians.

My point....we're all in this together but my country and the USA have a responsibility to help in the middle east as we caused a lot of the problems there, as well as did some of the good stuff, however we aren't he saviours of the world and maybe it's time we backed off and let this ancient civilisation sort itself out.

As for Europeans being passive...read some history!! And don't forget, the majority of Americans (certainly in the ruling classes) are of European descent).


User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 927 times:

I don't blame the UK....  Smile/happy/getting dizzy And my rant was very general in nature, but essentially sums it up.

User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 909 times:

As for Europeans being passive...read some history!!

Yes. Quite. Neville Chamberlain getting off a plane after meeting a short little dark-haired man from Austria, stating that he had accomplished peace in our time.....  Big grin

/satire



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 902 times:

France helped the US during the Revolutionary war with troops and money. Without that little turn of events, the US might not have been in a position to help liberate countries like France in WWII.

If you want to go back to look for the origin of a problem, don't stop at 60 years.

We're in Iraq to restore balance to the Middle East

And all the US has to do is step off the scale....



User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 881 times:

First of all, the entire issue with the US in WWII...

They succeeded with Japan in their war, while Russia also faught and they didn't recieve credit (a front in which my grandfather served). But in case of the European front, the US served about 10 months before war's end, and get all the credit for it... I'm not saying they shouldn't... but I feel that Britain and Russia should get more credit due to their higher involvement, higher purpose, higher casualties and fighters and higher number of years faught as well as their will...

We're in Iraq to restore balance to the Middle East

We're in Iraq because GHWB didn't do the job. GWB said it was about the nukes and ties to terrorists (which EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAS)

I don't care what we're there for right now, what I care about is the questions that are/were asked and HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED BY OUR GOVERNMENT.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 862 times:

But in case of the European front, the US served about 10 months before war's end, and get all the credit for it... I'm not saying they shouldn't... but I feel that Britain and Russia should get more credit due to their higher involvement, higher purpose, higher casualties and fighters and higher number of years faught as well as their will...

WHOA! ...there Hoss Cartright... If the US would not have kept the japanese busy in the Pacific.. Russia would in 'no way' and 'no how' would have had the latitude to fully concentrate on the it's western front/Germany's eastern front. Because Japan (free of US butt kicking..) would have certainly obliged Hitler and gone after Russia from the east... who would have?... no...who could have stopped them??? Not the Russians!

Secondly, it would require nothing short of the massive D-Day response -- an armada that stretched for miles to show up when the clouds lifted to show the germans that 'the beginning of end' was at hand. Nothing else would worked. And no one else would have been able to do it but the US. Time (10 months) doesn't define the victor's accomplishment(s). Just because one fighter has been boxing for 10 years and a new young boxer shows up, having very little time in ring and he knocks the older one flat on his back in no way diminishes his win! And that's exactly who the US was. Yes, we will take the credit thank you very much!


BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 858 times:

But in case of the European front, the US served about 10 months before war's end, and get all the credit for it... I'm not saying they shouldn't... but I feel that Britain and Russia should get more credit due to their higher involvement, higher purpose, higher casualties and fighters and higher number of years faught as well as their will...

Sorry but your timing seems off. The first US invasion of mainland Europe was in 1943, about 9 months prior to D-day, and the Germans where fully committed to that front, even if the US generals initally weren't.

And then if you count the African invasion, then that puts you back about another year that the US was actively engaged with the Germans on the ground, as where the British, who hadn't been on the mainland of Europe, on mass since Dunkirk.

I will agree with you that apart from Stanlingrad and the fall of Berlin, the USSR's actions in the war are not nearly as well known in the west. I doubt most people remember that the single largest tank battle in history occured at Kursk (I can't remember if it was the 1st or 2nd battle)



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 800 times:

I'm getting a little sick an tired of the attitude of certain Americans that we should bow down to what the USA wants just because of WWII. I am grateful of the sacrifices that American servicemen made in the second world war, but anytime someone from Europe disagrees with certain members from the States we get the 'we saved you bacon in WWII, you would we be speaking German if it wasn't for us' attitude. I'm sorry but as the so called upholders of free speach and democracy you should listen to other peoples point of view and respect it, you might disagree with it but that's no reason to act like children and do silly things like change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries or call people evil liberals or socialists. If you can't defend your beliefs in a reasoned and sensible manner without making silly jibes then go and leave the forums to us adults.

And before you think this is just a rant at Americans, you Europeans can stop calling the UK the USA's lap dog. Just because you agree with somebody doesn't make you their poodle, if that is the case then who is the master and who is the poodle out of Germany and France.



British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlineRussophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 798 times:

WHOA! ...there Hoss Cartright... If the US would not have kept the japanese busy in the Pacific.. Russia would in 'no way' and 'no how' would have had the latitude to fully concentrate on the it's western front/Germany's eastern front. Because Japan (free of US butt kicking..) would have certainly obliged Hitler and gone after Russia from the east... who would have?... no...who could have stopped them??? Not the Russians!

Don't be so sure. Eastern Russia is the most desolate inhabited terrain on the planet. There is no way in hell that Japan would have tried to have taken Russia from the east. You think the Russian winter which is often talked about in regards to World War II is bad (Stalingrad, Moscow, St Petersburg) -- well think twice as bad as this -- we are talking -50°C temperatures -- the Japanese would then have to make inroads over thousands of kilometres in this environment. The Germans had a hard enough time dealing with the severe Russian winter several hundred kilometres into the country. There is no way the Japanese could have. Remember of course, that the Russians live day in day out in such conditions, and hence are conditioned to it. The Japanese are not. The Russians would have kicked some serious Japanese butt.

Another major problem would be transport. The only way to traverse Siberia would be railway. There were no roads linking towns and cities -- nothing that would have been suitable for military needs. If the Japanese had tried to take Russia from the East, all the Soviets would have to have done is destroyed the rail links, and the Japanese were screwed.


User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 800 times:

Didn't say it was the mighty US to begin with. We all made the bed, and we are now paying for it. My simple statement is... When a Hitler pops up, kill it.

User currently offlineGc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2003, 356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 789 times:

"Yes, we will take the credit thank you very much!
"

Although the fact that the RAF effectively castrated the Luftwaffe's fighter capability in north west Europe during 1940 certainly helped; as did the hundreds of thousands of commonwealth troops (from India, Nepal, S.Africa, Canada, NZ, Oz etc) who were engaged against the Japanese in SE Asia. No one nation could have defeated the Axis, even the USA. We all needed each other. In the early part of the war, the US Navy defended supply convoys in the western atlantic, and the Royal Navy patrolling British waters such as Scapa Flow and the Channel. were an effective buffer in stopping any possibility of large Naval attacks getting through to the eastern seaboard from Scandinavian or North European ports..

Here are some figures for D-Day, interesting reading

http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/ddaynumbers.htm


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 786 times:

When a Hitler pops up, kill it

While I agree with the idea that it should never again be possible for anyone - or any country - to go along the same route as Hitler did, the one question that comes to mind would be this one:

Who gets to make the decision whether to do something or to not do something?

I can, under absolutely no circumstances, be one country alone - the risk of this one country deciding more along the lines of "is this guy helpful to us or not" is simply too great.

So - who could make those decisions?

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 785 times:

Secondly, it would require nothing short of the massive D-Day response -- an armada that stretched for miles to show up when the clouds lifted to show the germans that 'the beginning of end' was at hand. Nothing else would worked. And no one else would have been able to do it but the US.

Well...the US demonstrated quite disasterous planning during the D-Day invasion. If it wasn't for the British and Canadian divisions, it would have been a total waste.

The US troops rejected many of the tactical tools utilised by the British troops and unnecessary and paid dearly for it.

Looks like "shock and awe" didn't work back then either....


User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 778 times:

WHOA! ...there Hoss Cartright... If the US would not have kept the japanese busy in the Pacific.. Russia would in 'no way' and 'no how' would have had the latitude to fully concentrate on the it's western front/Germany's eastern front. Because Japan (free of US butt kicking..) would have certainly obliged Hitler and gone after Russia from the east... who would have?... no...who could have stopped them??? Not the Russians!


My grandfather faught on both fronts... We were aware of the Japs before Pearl Harbor (except we didn't know that PH was going to happen)



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 777 times:

The US troops rejected many of the tactical tools utilised by the British troops

Really, like those all those amphibous Shermans that ended up at the bottom of the channel?


And then we have that timid mouse, Montgomery. How many Germans troops where able to escape the buldge because we couldn't close off the gap when Patton linked with the 101 in Bastone?

How much shorter would the war have been if they had been captured there?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 766 times:

Really, like those all those amphibious Shermans that ended up at the bottom of the channel

Would they be the same amphibious Shermans that landed on Gold, Juno and Sword beach and started pounding the Germans, or the tanks that Bradley rejected that could clear minefields and barbwire defences that we used so effectively.

And then we have that timid mouse, Montgomery. How many Germans troops where able to escape the buldge because we couldn't close off the gap when Patton linked with the 101 in Bastone

Why do continue to throw insults at one of the best commanders of the second world war. Monty and the desert rats were handing out beatings to the Afrika Corps while you guys still had your heads buried in the sand.



British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 765 times:

Really, like those all those amphibous Shermans that ended up at the bottom of the channel?


Only 2 of the 29 amphibious Shermans made it to the beach on Omaha because of rough sea conditions, but they were much more successful on other beaches.

2 tanks is better than no tanks...





User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 756 times:

Goose,

In 1938 (Chamberlain´s speech), the British forces were in no way up to counter Germans. Britain faced a very antimilitaristic period after WW1, mostly based on the blunders made by British high ranking officers (e.g. Somme offensive with hundred thousands of British soldiers fed into a frontal attack on German machine gun positions). Only during the Spanish Civil War, where the Germans demostrated their at this time most modern equipment and tactics, did the British people realise that a massive rearmament was required. This is the reason, why e.g. Spitfires and Hurricanes were ordered off the drawing board. What Chamberlain did was buying time (on the expenses of the Czech and Austrian population) to get the British Army more or less ready for the fighting in 1940. Even then they faced major problems in countering the Blitzkrieg tactics, and if the French wouldn´t have covered the British withdrawal, Dunkirque would have been a disaster.
The French had, on paper, an army equal to Germany, but it had many problems. One was constant infighting and interservice rivalty between the top brass. This way e.g. intelligence from airforce intelligence about German units crossing the "impassable" Ardennes wasn´t handed over to the Army. Their tanks suffered from having only one man turrets, means the commander had at the same time to load and aim the gun. In 1939 the French overmobilised, causing a breakdown of the armament industry, because needed skilled workers were drafted into the military. Whole units had to be sent back to the factories. Also, all planning of both the French and British military aimed at a repetation of WW1, with soldiers sitting in trenches. Proponents of a mobile war like Colonel Charles de Gaulle were ignored.
Also, many of France´s upper class prefered a foreign occupation over a domestic center-left government.You see how fast Vichy France organised the arrest of French Jews and their handover to the German authorities. The first organised resistance wasn´t put up by the Communists for nothing.
Another problem was the Belgian insistence on neutrality. France didn´t want to offend the Belgians and therefore stopped the Maginot line at the Belgian border. The Belgians on the other hand up to the last minute refused to share information with the Allied governments not to speak of a direct cooperation (the Belgian government refused to let Allied troops enter their country. They also refused to own tanks, because they were considered to be an "offensive" weapon, not fitting a neutral country). This left the allied left flank wide open.


User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 753 times:

I know all that full well, MD11. I'm a well-read student of history - and my comment on Chamberlain was merely a satirical one in response to the assertion that Europe isn't passive. Europeans go through periods where pacifism is popular - Chamberlain's era being one of them.


"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 738 times:

Chamberlain did seriously mis-read Hitler (most people did), after the penny had dropped he was buying time.
I think many in the US (who joined WW1 in 1917 and so suffered few losses) completely underestimate the effect that slaughter had on the national pyche, not only with combatants and their families, but the panic the Zeppelin raids caused, along with wartime shortages this nearly caused social breakdowns towards the end of, and after WW1.

As for Monty, well lets just say it must be galling for Hollywood to accept that the US was not involved in the first defeat of German land forces, hence the years of denigration towards him, he was also up against one of Hitler's best generals and very best formations.
The N.African/Mediterranean campaign was vital for Britain and later the Allies, you think that scarce resources in 1940/41 would have gone there if it wasn't?
They were not there looking for an escape from the British weather, it's overlooked again because the US joined the effort at the end, so not relevant to the Hollywood WW2, which is aimed at a US audience.

Even so, Rommel's battered and retreating troops still managed to chew up some US forces at Kasserine.

Funny how the same treatment has not really been given out to US General Mark Clark, now he was very second rate.
Monty was cautious because he came from the experience of not having unlimited resources, quite the opposite in fact, at his disposal, he could be innovative though, and he knew how to restore morale and lick a force into shape.
He screwed up at Market Garden, which you could argue was the result of forgetting his own attributes of caution.

Any Africa Korps troops under Monty's artillery barrages, air attacks, tank and infantry attacks, would not likely think it the result of a timid man.

As for D-Day, Omaha was unlucky with the Duplex Drive Shermans, they worked elsewhere, but it's true that Hobart's 179th Armoured Division, with his innovative vehicles for amphibious warfare, were rejected by the US command, save for the DD Shermans.


User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 718 times:

Chamberlain did seriously mis-read Hitler (most people did),

Churchill never trusted nor liked Hitler at all. His memoirs say as much, and his record and statements during Chamberlain's drive for peace with Germany say that as well. He held him in the lowest regard since they first met.

Chamberlain, on the other hand, was honoured by a portrait that hung prominantly in the Eagle's Nest..... I suppose it's true that one always pays tribute to those who helped him....



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 707 times:

But Churchill was almost alone in his view of Hitler, in the early to mid 1930's anyway, that went for much of Europe (including Germany) and the US too.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 709 times:

Don't be so sure. Eastern Russia is the most desolate inhabited terrain on the planet. There is no way in hell that Japan would have tried to have taken Russia from the east. You think the Russian winter which is often talked about in regards to World War II is bad (Stalingrad, Moscow, St Petersburg) -- well think twice as bad as this -- we are talking -50°C temperatures -- the Japanese would then have to make inroads over thousands of kilometres in this environment. The Germans had a hard enough time dealing with the severe Russian winter several hundred kilometres into the country. There is no way the Japanese could have. Remember of course, that the Russians live day in day out in such conditions, and hence are conditioned to it. The Japanese are not. The Russians would have kicked some serious Japanese butt.

Another major problem would be transport. The only way to traverse Siberia would be railway. There were no roads linking towns and cities -- nothing that would have been suitable for military needs. If the Japanese had tried to take Russia from the East, all the Soviets would have to have done is destroyed the rail links, and the Japanese were screwed.


Russo, I'm quite certain it would have happened. The Japanese were already all over Mongolia and Manchuria -- those areas aren't know for any sunny beaches either! Plus Northern Japan - Hokkaido is very much a pretty mirror image of southern Siberia. The Japanese could handle that crappy weather very easily. Secondly, the lack of railways would have made no difference... it didn't in Manchuria and parts of China... they just made the locals built it as they did in virtually every country they took... all they way down to Burma! In addition, they carved out airstrips everwhere they went and where there wasn't one!

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineGc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2003, 356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 686 times:

Here are the troops numbers for D-Day, seems pretty equal to me give or take a few thousand, not quite what's shown in those "USA saved everyone movies!" Many nations played their part.

Gold 24,970 (British led Forces including Canada & Commonwealth)
Utah 23,250 (USA Forces)
Juno 21,400 (British)
Omaha (USA) 34,250
Sword 28,845 (British)

  —
Total 75,214 (British Sector)
Total 57,500 (US Sector)



"In addition, over twenty-three thousand airborne troops were landed by the Allied air forces. The records are not complete but, including glider pilots, their approximate numbers appear to have been 7,900 British and 15,500 American. Thus in spite of the Atlantic Wall over a hundred and fifty-six thousand men had been landed in France during the first day of the campaign."




25 Post contains images EmiratesA345 : "GWB said it was about the nukes and ties to terrorists (which EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAS)" Hmmm that's funny! The last I heard, that countr
26 VonRichtofen : Gold 24,970 (British led Forces including Canada & Commonwealth) Utah 23,250 (USA Forces) Juno 21,400 (British) Omaha (USA) 34,250 Sword 28,845 (Briti
27 Indianguy : We're in Iraq to restore balance to the Middle East, Nie Job they did too!
28 L-188 : What Chamberlain did was buying time (on the expenses of the Czech and Austrian population) to get the British Army more or less ready for the fightin
29 GDB : Around the time of the Czech crisis and after it, Chamberlain started a rearmament programme. No one is revising anything, he was wrong about Hitler l
30 Gc : "Not sure where your info is from, but Juno beach was the Canadian beach not Gold. " I was using an abbreviated "British" meaning, Canada, commonwealt
31 StevenUhl777 : We're in Iraq because GHWB didn't do the job. Yes, and no. Yes, because Saddam was left in power, and continued to LIE to the world about WMD and toye
32 Mdsh00 : "You don't think Communism and Capitalism can't co-exist??? Look at the US and China." You know that would be a valid statement if not for the fact th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Would It Take To End The Iraq War? posted Wed Jul 4 2007 02:06:57 by Blackbird
Uh-oh! First Reports Of Iran Attack In Iraq posted Tue Jun 26 2007 05:28:29 by AndesSMF
Handicapped Parking (A Rant) posted Sun Jun 24 2007 15:16:57 by Airfoilsguy
G**damn Water Heaters (Rant) posted Tue Jun 19 2007 11:32:34 by Trav110
Turkish Troops In Northern Iraq posted Wed Jun 6 2007 17:24:57 by CO7e7
Bush Proposes 'Korea Model' For Iraq posted Mon Jun 4 2007 15:27:14 by Cba
Shocking Behaviour Of US Soldiers In Iraq posted Wed May 30 2007 17:17:47 by ME AVN FAN
White House Plans To Cut Iraq Troops By Half In 08 posted Sat May 26 2007 04:02:14 by Jimyvr
A Thought On Iraq Government Contracts posted Fri May 25 2007 19:34:12 by Flynavy
Rant: Hewlett-Packard Computers (What Do You Use) posted Mon May 21 2007 19:42:28 by BR715-A1-30