online dating service

Free Dating Site    

REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES
Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest 100% free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Are you against the War?      Mod Threads Home login  
Page 2 of 54 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41
 Author Thread: Are you against the War?
 darjeeling

Joined: 3/11/2005
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 2:27:40 AM

Normally you are quite reasonable but it would seem to me that you are somehow predisposed to believing this nonsense for reasons that I can only guess at. This is right up there with the world wide Jewish conspiracy theories that prompted their near extermination a little over sixty years ago.


Thank you for the first, but I do need to contend with the rest in the above.

Did you happen to follow the link I provided gottapulse? If you had you would have encountered this:


Whose War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.

On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?

The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.

On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?

*snip*

To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”

Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”

Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world.


A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.

“We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.

*snip*

On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.

Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis “prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.

In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” Leaked reports of Murawiec’s briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington’s ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”

The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.



“Securing the Realm”

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:


Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.


In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.

In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”

Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.


So gottapulse, you can liken all of the above as mere fantasy and attribute it as a product of a perverse 'klanlike mentality' ?

It is all documented, and supported by their own publications, of statements made in their own words.

I am sorry but when I research these issues I pay attention to details of how all of these folks started showing up in the very power centers that shaped and drafted our foreign policy regarding the Iraq mission.

Could it possibly be a case that you might just be uncomfrotable with where the facts lay ?


darjeeling
 Belfast Child

Joined: 5/3/2005
Msg: 27
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 7:50:19 AM
What war? It was an illegal invasion.....

Bush said he would, 'go into Iraq in 48 hours.' Liar; he went in 42 hours....
 Blacksheep

Joined: 6/28/2004
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/15/2005 9:00:54 AM
Yet another Ignorant post from (Fake Pimp in the Neon Green suit), its one thing to state your opinion like some of the more intelligent conservatives on here, but its another thing totally to keep coming with non-sense, racist, Neo Con posts like this. you are doing more to shame your party and make every democrats point even more valid.

Your fello conservities should get you banned if possible since your drilling hols in the hull of their ship faster than they can plug em, LMAO!!!

but until they do I will continue to enjoy a good laugh at your and and other conservatives expense. lol

big deal over Saddam, your party sacrificed over 2500 american soldiers (and many more to come) and have created thousand more terrorists throuh the murder of innocent people to kill one man??? if that isnt the creshendo of stupidity I dont know what is.

Just a thought, Bin-Laden is still out there recruiting for Al Qaeda, and for every innocent Iraqi we killed over there, there will be atleast 5 family members that will be more receptive to becoming a terrorist and an entire region of the world who will love the Bin-Laden's and their kind and be more receptive to their anti west, anti christian, and anti jew views.

People like you have made more terrorists not less!!
 Blacksheep

Joined: 6/28/2004
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Sorry, had to repost to add some more thoughts on this reply to
Posted: 10/15/2005 9:26:13 AM
"Fake Bidness man Pimp in the neon green suit" thawootah,
lol, your always good for a laugh!!

Did someone just go see Fahrenheit 9/11 seems they did half this stuff posted came right from that terrorist supporters mouth I think they need to start checking back packs here.

That war is justified, Saddams up for trial and all the American hating lib's are coming out showing their support for Saddam, I hope they Fry Saddam in front of all his followers. I can just picture it Liberals take to the streets all decked out in their hippie outfits thinking their cool with their long hippie hair screaming Save Saddam and burning our flag while the conservative boys in blue take out their Billy clubs and mase and teach em a lesson on being patriotic. Its going to be glorious. I hope its all on TV so I can mute it and put on some heavy metal and watch in peace.


Yet another Ignorant post from (Fake Pimp bid-ness man in the Neon Green suit) lol, its one thing to state your opinion like some of the more intelligent conservatives on here, but its another thing totally to keep coming with non-sense, racist, Neo Con posts like this. you are doing more to shame your party and make every democrats point even more valid.

Your fellow conservaties should get you banned if possible since your drilling holes in the hull of their ship faster than they can plug em, LMAO!!!

But until they do I will continue to enjoy a good laugh at your, and other conservatives who think like you expense. lol

Big deal over Saddam, your party sacrificed over 2500 american soldiers (and many more to come) and have created thousand more terrorists throuh the murder of innocent people to kill one man??? if that isnt the creshendo of stupidity I dont know what is.
If Iraqis really wanted him dead they couldve done so themselves!! their civilian poplulation have more guns than all of America's civilians. And Big guns too like AK-47. If Linclon and Kennedy were both killed with handguns, why couldnt Iraqis bust Saddams head???
You know why, cause unlike Bush , the Iraqi people realized that Saddam was bad but ruled with an Iron fist and kept those who would be worse outta Iraq. ( I have no love lost for Saddam by the way, he'll get what he deserves) Now that He's gone though you have many Saddam "mini me" and Bin-Laden "Mini me's" running around Iraq trying to fill the power vacuum we created.

Theres a saying " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Or in this case Bosses.

Just a thought, Bin-Laden is still out there recruiting for Al Qaeda, and for every innocent Iraqi we killed over there, there will be atleast 5-10 family members that will be more receptive to becoming a terrorist against America outta revenge, and an entire region of the world who will love the Bin-Laden's and their kind and be more receptive to their anti west, anti christian, and anti jew views.

Think to yourself what would you want to do if Iraq came over here and bombed and killed your family, and arrested Bush telling you they had something better for your own best interests, just because Canada bombed them?

Would you thank the Iraqis? or would you vow a bloodbath to Iraq for your loss?

People like you have made more terrorists not less!!
 Gotapulse

Joined: 3/21/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Sorry, had to repost to add some more thoughts on this reply to
Posted: 10/15/2005 1:41:48 PM
Darjeeling, it's not that the idea doesn't have some backing but in the big picture it's ludicrous. What you're asserting is that this is ALL really the result some Israeli plot and (this is the part that is downright nuts) they have defacto control over Washington. Do you honestly think that the US would be completely under the thumb and manipulation of a few Israeli Mossad agents ?
Look, to say that they have some influence is one thing. That's not what your original contention was though. You're saying that they basically control the US government. I think that's giving them considerably more credit than they can possibly ever be worthy of.

Simply put, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
 lrsshadow

Joined: 9/11/2004
Msg: 31
Sorry, had to repost to add some more thoughts on this reply to
Posted: 10/17/2005 2:13:56 PM
I am for the war in Iraq and have been for over 10 years. Afganistan and Iraq are the two greatest things america has done since WW2.
 HalftimeDad

Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Sorry, had to repost to add some more thoughts on this reply to
Posted: 10/17/2005 3:37:19 PM

I am for the war in Iraq and have been for over 10 years. Afganistan and Iraq are the two greatest things america has done since WW2.

Since WW2 America has: been to the moon; eradicated small pox; averted war over the Suez; produced the majority of Nobel prize winners; created the world economy and high tech as we know it; rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan; followed the Truman doctrine and thereby ended Stalinism; ended institutional racism within its own borders. I could go on, but I think you need to rethink your perspective.
 grog27

Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Sorry, had to repost to add some more thoughts on this reply to
Posted: 10/17/2005 4:19:08 PM
"I am for the war in Iraq and have been for over 10 years. Afganistan and Iraq are the two greatest things america has done since WW2.
Since WW2 America has: been to the moon; eradicated small pox; averted war over the Suez; produced the majority of Nobel prize winners; created the world economy and high tech as we know it; rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan; followed the Truman doctrine and thereby ended Stalinism; ended institutional racism within its own borders. I could go on, but I think you need to rethink your perspective. "

No kidding!! America has done countless great things since WWII (great list, by the way, halftime!); to say that Afghanistan and Iraq are among those great things is ludicrous.
 Xenifide

Joined: 6/16/2004
Msg: 34
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/17/2005 11:10:14 PM
I don't feel like a debate so I will only post my opinion.

I am okay with the war.
 longte

Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 35
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/18/2005 2:34:20 AM
You already know my views
Just a little something I wrote
You can put the same tank in any conflict you like
You can use it for either side
But the end result is the same

Tank

Like a fossil dinosaur it lies in mystic waiting
Once it was alive but now it is just haunting
Barrel droops where once it was a challenge to the air
All around an aspect of loss and quiet despair

Pennant lies in tatters aerial unused
No memory of what they are, or how they were used
Armour plate superfluous, on a deadened hulk
Shrunken in its death, it still displays its bulk

Once it had a dream, same as those within
Was it pride that took it down, was that such a sin
Kids that were the crew, stalwart strong and proud
Well they knew the battle cry and shouted it out loud

When they left Nebraska to fight in foreign lands
Never knew the reason and did not understand
Only knew their duty, and did their duty well
Never once complained, ‘bout going into hell

There these kids saw things, that kids should not see
Walked away from youth into hate and misery
Learnt the truth, that trust, can be a fatal flaw
We’ll never understand, the horrors that they saw

Beyond all help forever, three of them have died
One of them, in agony, clinging onto life
Phosphorous grenades, burn right down to the bone
Will be many months, before he can go home

Another crew is ready; tank will be repaired
Back home in Nebraska, wife weeps in despair
..
.
 NotaLiberal

Joined: 9/28/2005
Msg: 36
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 6:28:51 AM
Nope

The war on terror is a Necessary Evil
 grog27

Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:02:43 AM
" Nope

The war on terror is a Necessary Evil "

In the first place, it's not a "war"; it's an illegal invasion and occupation.

In the second place, it's not a "War on Terror"; it's a War OF Terror.

...and what's with the goofy "no Liberals!" photo? That's like saying, "No independant or critical thought." Thank you, Big Brother!!
 NotaLiberal

Joined: 9/28/2005
Msg: 38
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:11:12 AM
Well if a Liberal was capable of independent thought you would have an argument!

THe house and senate voted to authorize it, therefore not illegal

War is a terrifying thing.

But iraq is the second battlefield in the War on Terror

It is just that simple
 grog27

Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:19:35 AM
"THe house and senate voted to authorize it, therefore not illegal"

Irrelevant. Sorry. They only "authorized" it after the rest of the world said they should wait for all the facts. But then, why let the facts get in the way of a good "war"?

As for the "independent thought" remark, thanks for making our case!
Who's a good little sheep?!! That's right! YOU are!! Good boy!!!
 NotaLiberal

Joined: 9/28/2005
Msg: 40
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 9:18:36 AM
The rest of the world? The rest of the world should have no bearing on our congress. They authorized military action in iraq. That makes it LEGAL! nuff said
 longte

Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 41
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 10:11:50 AM
Just a small question
If the rest of the world has no bearing on your leaders decisions, why did he bother asking them to help
Regardless of anything else, no matter which party you support, you must realise by now, that this was a war started very likely under false pretences
With the evidence that has been revealed in America England and other countries, you must surely be starting to wonder
First it was Weapons of Mass Destruction
That was proven to be doubtful to say the least
Then it was War on Terror
Why attack a minor player when friends like Saudi Arabia provided most of the terrorists and most of the money??
Then it was to stop nuclear proliferation
But North Korea was a lot closer to having weapons, Why not take them out

Leave the Political Bias out and look at this logically
Kids are dying
They are dying for what reason?
When they see the money train that went from Saudi Arabia to terrorists, not from Iraq
they must wonder
When they found no WMD they must wonder

Support the kids that are there, but it would be difficult to support the war itself
..
.
 NotaLiberal

Joined: 9/28/2005
Msg: 42
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 10:47:59 AM
"First it was Weapons of Mass Destruction
That was proven to be doubtful to say the least
Then it was War on Terror
Why attack a minor player when friends like Saudi Arabia provided most of the terrorists and most of the money??
Then it was to stop nuclear proliferation"

NO NO NO

the FOCUS is the only thing that ever changed.

There were three seperate reasons given from the get go reasons why we were going to invade iraq. They NEVER changed.

Saudi EXILES are not "provided" by saudi arabia. The legitimate saudi govt did not back them. The Taliban did.

Iraq was not about retrobution for 911, that is what the taliban was.

Iraq was a pre emptive strike against a potential threat!
 Gotapulse

Joined: 3/21/2005
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 11:20:38 AM
Okay, enough with this "illegal invasion" stuff. It's a war. That's what we call them. What war is "legal" ? Really, who has ever called a war "illegal" ? They're ALL illegal from an ethical standpoint. Unless you want to get into precise definitions and applications of them. In that case, who precisely decides what is legal and illegal ? The UN ? Well, if that's the case then like I said, name one war that couldn't be considered illegal ? Sure, you're thinking of something like Korea but no, technically that would be a "police action" since it was in response to North Korean aggression. That makes it "illegal" for North Korea to have invaded South Korea in the first place. That would make that war an "illegal invasion" as well except of course that the UN backed those that didn't instigate it.

Call it what it is. It was a war and now it's an occupation. That's why we invented the words.
 grog27

Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 1:19:47 PM
"The rest of the world? The rest of the world should have no bearing on our congress. They authorized military action in iraq. That makes it LEGAL! nuff said"


So does this mean that you're saying that even though you go around invading whichever country, anywhere in THE WORLD, that happens to be on the "evil list" on a given day, the opinion of the rest of THE WORLD doesn't matter? Is this what you're saying?
 NotaLiberal

Joined: 9/28/2005
Msg: 45
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 1:36:09 PM
Essentially, YES

Giving into public/foreign opinion is what has fu--ed up our foreign policy over the last manyyears.

But more directly, foreign OPINION has nothing to do with if the invasion is LEGAL or not!
 HalftimeDad

Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 2:32:15 PM
It seems to me that a few years ago the US got involved in a war when one nation illegally (US government's words) invaded a much weaker nation. There were stories about atrocities and everbody jumped on board. Trying to remember, seems to me it was in the same part of the world.... Maybe even the President's name was the same. I know there was a lot of talk about international law, how invading another country was evil. It'll come to me.
 NotaLiberal

Joined: 9/28/2005
Msg: 47
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 2:44:44 PM
Sometimes what is right is not always what is popular. We learn that in grade school!!
 grog27

Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 2:45:51 PM
" It seems to me that a few years ago the US got involved in a war when one nation illegally (US government's words) invaded a much weaker nation. There were stories about atrocities and everbody jumped on board. Trying to remember, seems to me it was in the same part of the world.... Maybe even the President's name was the same. I know there was a lot of talk about international law, how invading another country was evil. It'll come to me. "

ZING!!! He shoots...He SCORES!!!! Good one, halftime!
 NotaLiberal

Joined: 9/28/2005
Msg: 49
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 3:20:15 PM
The only thing I had a problem with in that arena was that when the going got tough, the **stard cut and ran!
 ocean camper

Joined: 3/5/2005
Msg: 50
Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/20/2005 10:28:29 PM
George W Dumbya Bush is retarded just like his big daddy. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, this war is all about oil, and I am against stupid oil wars, always!
Page 2 of 54 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41
 
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Are you against the War?