Could a Troop Surge Work or Not?

Are the polititians doing a good job could you do better, debate your views with others
User avatar
azraelle
Queen
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:16 am
Location: southern utah, usa

Postby azraelle on Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:11 pm

One thing we ought to do b4 we get out (and the Brits should have done in 1919 when the Ottoman Em_pire was partitioned, btw) is carve out an independent Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, as a minimum, and encourage Iran and Turkey to cede the mainly Kurdish territories within their borders (that even THEY admit they have no control over) to said Kurdistan. That would be the just thing to do, perhaps the only just thing left that can be done. More of a chance that Hell might freeze over, but one can entertain the hope. :cry:
"Those Who Cast the Votes Decide Nothing.
Those who Count the Votes decide everything"
--Joseph Stalin

Nefarious
Getting in the Groove
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:49 am

Postby Nefarious on Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:39 pm

twerp wrote:the vast majority of american soldiers in iraq are not defeatist.......anti-war liberals have successfully orchestrated a strategy to erode popular support for our troops while they are in harm's way and cripple the war effort....hell, the democrats are even threatening to de-fund the troops in the middle of a war....without doubt, the erosion of popular support at home eventually demoralizes the troops in combat and makes defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy....the same mentality and tactics caused america to lose in vietnam....even the viet cong leaders admitted that the war was lost in america, not in vietnam.....these vocal american defeatists are no different than traitors.....


The American soldiers may not be defeatist and you know - if they were sent to achieve a certain goal then for everything they are sacrificing then I can see why there would be a lot of validation coming from staying the course and seeing those goals met. It would bring a clear sense of purpose to it all - closure I guess, in terms of what their brothers in arms died for, the time they spent away from their family, the wounds - both psychological and physical that war inflicts.

But at the same time, how do the soldiers cope with the tension if they perceive that the majority of Iraqis don't want the occupation to continue and want allied forces to leave and let them sort it out for themselves?

I know some in Iraq think that if the occupiers leave then they will take care of getting rid of Al Qaeda themselves and perhaps this is a naivety. But there is a real conundrum around Al Qaeda. I think they are definately working to fuel sectarian violence because they want the conflict to continue - they want the allied occupation to continue because it provides them with a battlefield on which to vent their indoctrinated hatred. Would Iraq turn into an Al Qaeda stronghold if the occupation left or would Al Qaeda move onto wherever the allied forces go next or be run out of dodge? Obviously we can't know what the result would be with this. But there is one thing for certain - as long as the occupation continues Al Qaeda operatives will continue to flock to Iraq, peace attempts will continue to be undermined and Iraqi civilians will be caught in the cross-fire. So a conundrum - on the one hand if you leave you MAY hand control of the region over to Al Qaeda, but if you stay you will definately ensure Al Qaeda remains in Iraq. They are coming in from all over the place - you take some out, more will pop up.

Nefarious
Getting in the Groove
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:49 am

Postby Nefarious on Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:38 pm

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/07/05/afx3885149.html

AFX News Limited
Followers of al-Sadr join opposition on draft Iraq oil law
07.05.07, 5:35 AM ET

NAJAF, Iraq (Thomson Financial) - Followers of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Thursday joined a growing chorus of Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite opposition to a draft oil law approved by Iraq's cabinet and backed by the US government.

Sadr's supporters said they would not support any law that would allow firms 'whose governments are occupying Iraq' -- a reference to the US, Britain and their coalition allies -- to sign Iraqi oil deals.

'We reject this unclear law that contains a number of points which prevent us from accepting it,' Agence France-Presse cited Sheikh Salah al-Obaidi, a Sadr office spokesman, saying.

'This law has no grounding in Iraqi reality,' he added.

The nationalist Shiite movement particularly objects to the bill's provision for production-sharing agreements with foreign oil firms designed to bring investment into Iraq's oil sector, according to one senior member.

'The most serious problem with the law is the production-sharing agreements, which we categorically reject,' Nassar al-Rubaie, the spokesman for Sadr's parliamentary bloc, said.

Such agreements, which provide for foreign oil companies to share investment and profits with the state, would 'undermine Iraq's sovereignty in the short run and will strip it of its sovereignty in the long run', he added.

Speaking for the 32-member bloc that is currently boycotting parliament, Rubaie insisted the movement would only approve the law with an amendment to ban oil contracts with 'companies whose governments are occupying Iraq'.


Now this is how you start to get some Iraqi unity - they needed to band together over this because sectarian division was making them vulnerable to exploitation. They were so diverted to the horrors going on around them that I was afraid this would be pushed through and set in concrete.

I notice Al-Sadr has also been trying to encourage Shiite's to stop retaliating against Sunni's in reaction to such provocative recent events as more Shiite mosques being bombed (the bombing of Samarra was what triggered a spiral toward full-scale civil war in the past). He has emphasized their shared identity as Iraqi's and has instead said that it is outside forces whose interests are served by inciting Iraqi’s to fight against each other. And Sunni leaders have been listening and talking with him too. The Iraqi government is too much a puppet of American interests to have credibility with the people. Smart cleric.

However, bush will fight tooth and nail, and undermine these developments where possible to ensure those oil laws are passed as drafted – however I truly hope he is foiled in this respect. The importance of these oil laws to Bush and his cohorts are made clear through the fact that Bush made resolving the law as one of the central ‘benchmarks’ for achievements of the Iraqi Government, part of what would herald the beginning of US forces withdrawing. However, Bush may find that the resolve of Iraqi people to stand firm will ultimately make the investment of continued American taxpayer resources and lives into pursuing this deal untenable.

In justifying this benchmakr, Bush wrapped it in the argument that the oil law would serve to create peace in Iraq – it was held out to be some great solution. In reality it primarily serves the interests of foreign big money companies – pretty much exclusively western by my understanding - and international analysts have been trying to warn Iraqi’s that the deal was a rip off compared to other similar deals. The deal also specific a limited number of companies to trade with, and those companies were the ones taking more than their rightful share, locked in for 30 years.

Al-Sadr is taking it a little too far in that he is saying ‘no companies of the occupiers’. What would be in the best interests of Iraqi’s is simply to say that it is in their interest to listen to all offers from those interested in tendering – beyond just the companies stipulated – and then if those companies want to do business then they will have to be competitive against other companies in their tenders. When you take away the competition, as this oil law would have done, then a monopoly is created where the ability for the Iraqi’s to negotiate the best deals is seriously undermined.

Nefarious
Getting in the Groove
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:49 am

Postby Nefarious on Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:07 pm

AND SO THE OFFENSIVE AGAINST AL-SADR's PEOPLE:

http://www.countercurrents.org/martin020707.htm

Massacre In Baghdad’s Sadr City

By Patrick Martin

02 July, 2007
WSWS.org

In one of the largest raids into the largely Shiite Sadr City district of eastern Baghdad, US forces killed some 26 people and detained another 17, according to an announcement by a military spokesman Saturday. The early-morning raid produced an explosion of violence, with US tanks and helicopters opening fire in the densely populated working-class neighborhood and destroying both vehicles and entire buildings.

While US military officials portrayed the incident as a pitched battle between US troops and armed militants using roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons, residents who spoke to Western reporters afterwards said there was no organized response by the Mahdi Army militia, loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Despite the claims of fierce and close-quarter combat, there were no US casualties reported, a fact that suggests the one-sided character of the engagement.

There were conflicting reports on the toll of dead and wounded. A representative of al-Sadr who spoke to the media in Najaf said that four members of one family, including women, were killed by a US bomb, and another 16 young men died. “There were no clashes between the Mahdi army and occupation forces,” he said. “We are condemning this attack, which targeted the innocent people in their homes, and we are calling on the government to open an investigation with the occupation forces to find out what happened.”

An eyewitness who spoke with the Washington Post confirmed aspects of the account given by the al-Sadr spokesman, including the killing of four family members in their house. He described “random shooting” in the neighborhood but no direct attacks on US troops. “What’s the goal of this savage act?” he asked. “What are they trying to do—make the people hate Americans more or simply kill the Iraqis?”

Other eyewitnesses told the Associated Press (AP) that US troops had opened fire without warning, shooting into buildings whose residents were mostly asleep. Basheer Ahmed, a Sadr City resident, said, “At about 4 a.m., a big American convoy with tanks came and began to open fire on houses, bombing them. What did we do? We didn’t even retaliate. There was no resistance.”

An Iraqi policeman wounded in the raid, Montadhar Kareem, spoke to AP from his bed at Al Sadr General Hospital, where he was being treated. “The bombing became more intense, and I was injured by shrapnel in both my legs and in my left shoulder,” he said.

Another resident was interviewed while watching a funeral procession for several of the victims. She said, “We are being hit while we are peacefully sleeping in our houses. Is that fair?”

Eleven-year-old Laith Jassim spoke to the Los Angeles Times after he was wounded in the shoulder by shrapnel. “When I was injured, my brothers were not able to send me to the hospital because the Americans were shooting,” he said, asking, “Do I look like a Mahdi army member to you?”

US spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver repeated the claim, invariably made after every military massacre, that US troops only kill armed combatants. “Everyone who got shot was shooting at U.S. troops at the time,” he said. “Every structure and vehicle that the troops on the ground engaged were being used for hostile intent.” he said.

Such blanket assurances insult the intelligence of the public, since both the officer and the reporters who took down his statement are well aware that it is impossible for soldiers, opening fire in pitch darkness in a crowded urban area, to know precisely who and what they are hitting, let alone give assurances that “every” target is a military one.

Meanwhile, there was an unconfirmed report of an even more gruesome US massacre in Diyala province, the focus of the military offensive entitled Arrowhead Ripper, begun June 15. The Iraqi Islamic Party, the Sunni component of the US-imposed coalition government, published a statement Sunday claiming that more than 350 people have been killed in Baquba, the provincial capital, in what they termed a “collective punishment” of the population, treating all residents of the city as insurgents.

The statement declared, “Neighborhoods in western Baquba have witnessed, since last week, fierce attacks by occupation forces within Operation Arrowhead Ripper ... The forces shelled these neighborhoods with helicopters, destroying more than 150 houses and killing more than 350 citizens, their bodies still under wreckage, in addition to arresting scores of citizens.”

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite elected to his position with the backing of the al-Sadr movement, issued a statement condemning the attack on the eastern Baghdad. “The Iraqi government totally rejects US military operations...conducted without prior approval from the Iraqi military command,” he declared. “Anyone who breaches the military command orders will face investigation.”

Maliki’s government appears even more impotent than the US-backed stooge regime of President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. While Karzai is openly derided as the “mayor of Kabul,” because his political realm is limited to the Afghan capital city, Maliki cannot control even that much. After he blocked one proposed US invasion of Sadr City last fall, Maliki was compelled to endorse future incursions as part of the ongoing US military “surge” that has mobilized an additional 30,000 combat troops. His protests over the latest US atrocity in his own capital will be brushed aside.

It appears that the raid into Sadr City was aimed at promoting the US campaign against alleged Iranian involvement in the guerilla resistance to the US occupation of Iraq. The military spokesman, Lt. Col. Garver, said that the 17 men detained were suspected of “close ties to Iranian terror networks.”

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, told reporters Saturday that he would shortly “lay out for the press” the extent of Iranian support of “secret cells” of Mahdi Army militiamen. “There’s actually been operational...direction provided to these militia organizations by the Iranian Quds Force,” he claimed. He made this statement during a visit to a southern Baghdad neighborhood where a powerful armor-piercing roadside bomb killed one US soldier in a convoy of Humvees. Three others were wounded.

The raid on Sadr City comes at the conclusion of another bloody month, in which more than 1,200 Iraqi civilians died, according to government figures, which are considered low estimates. Some 101 US troops were killed in June, bringing the three-month total to 331, the highest such quarterly toll since the war began. During the same period, 22 British soldiers were killed, more than in any similar period except the actual invasion in March 2003. For the six months January through June, 574 US soldiers, Marines and airmen have died in Iraq, a staggering 62 percent increase over the same period in 2006.

In another development Saturday, two American soldiers were charged with premeditated murder in the killing of three Iraqis near the town of Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad. The killings were separate incidents but had a common methodology: in all three cases, according to the charges, the soldiers planted weapons with their victims and claimed they were insurgents, then lied about the killings to investigators.

AND NOTE THE OFFENSIVE AGAINST THE IRAQI ISLAMIST PARTY.

See here a recent news release that, in addition to Sadr's recent statement, identifies the Iraqi Islamist Party as having opposition to the oil law going through:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5B6E5C-019F-4D49-BD4A-BDA7542FB43D.htm

It seems a central issue is that there have been alterations made to the law and it wasn't shown to everyone! This is dirty pool people and all too par for the course unfortunately. It's not about winning or losing folks - it's about how ugly and lacking in humanity these actions are - all in the name of profit. And the biggest con is that it won't be the American taxpayers profit - this is all their cost - both money and their children and the fear of retaliation - the profit will go to the companies which already have been raking it in hand over fist.

There are two great rapes going on - the Iraqi r**** is several orders of magnitude higher than the American r**** - but big business is psychopathic - it just doesn't care. It will sell you any story that they think you will be gullible enough to buy - end of story.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:29 am

Your source is Al Jazeera. Who are you kidding? :roll:

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:46 am

. wrote:Your source is Al Jazeera. Who are you kidding? :roll:


So what news is credible? Fox? :lol:

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:51 pm

Not Al Jazeera, that's for sure.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:12 pm

The al jazeera citation is far from the most relevant citation above - you would do better to attack the other sources.

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:15 pm

. wrote:Not Al Jazeera, that's for sure.


Not unbiased, but it is a news source that has a bias many in the mideast understand and respect. As such it has to be listened to, regardless of your (and my) personal opinions about it's truthfulness or prejudice.

The troop surge will not work as I said on page 3 or so, unless there are jobs. Current unemployment is at 80+% in Baghdad, particularly hard hit are those that can't afford to pay bribes to get work. So long as part time work setting road side bombs or robbing the neighbor that prays with his hands in a different position pays better than a real job the bulk of Iraq will be in the hands of terrorists and other "mafia" types.

Without security and jobs, not oil handouts but real jobs, the region will churn itself into yet more poverty and violence. The USA and UK are addressing the first requirement of security as best a outside power can, but the latter needs improvement and just as much or more attention.

We never should have had any dealings whatsoever with Saddam, mass murder and pervert, but we did. We never should have divided the country to promote sectarian differences to weaken the central governments, but we did. It's time to pay our debt. Now if we could get the rest of Europe... France and Germany come to mind... to pay THEIR part of the debt.

Nefarious
Getting in the Groove
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:49 am

A glimmer of Hope

Postby Nefarious on Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:21 pm

Some positive developments - hope to see more of this

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

User avatar
08pooled
Private Dancer (can now PM!)
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: United States

Re: Could a Troop Surge Work or Not?

Postby 08pooled on Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:35 pm

The surge worked. Perhaps another one will work even better.
The three things that make life go round:

1. Sports
2. Politics
3. Sensuality

User avatar
Lena
Angel
 
Posts: 39589
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Kentucky , USA

Postby Lena on Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:01 pm

The surge has worked ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If so then it wud have led to a real government in Bagdad , the US army or Iraq government wud control the whole country including Baghdad , and the Iraq civil war wud be over NONE of which HAVE HAPPENED ......................

Lets face it ,we've lost and thanx to that fool little georgey getting us into this war the worst is yet to come ....................... :roll:
Alive in spite of myself and looking at the world .........

User avatar
08pooled
Private Dancer (can now PM!)
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: United States

Postby 08pooled on Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:06 pm

Lena wrote:The surge has worked ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If so then it wud have led to a real government in Bagdad , the US army or Iraq government wud control the whole country including Baghdad , and the Iraq civil war wud be over NONE of which HAVE HAPPENED ......................

Lets face it ,we've lost and thanx to that fool little georgey getting us into this war the worst is yet to come ....................... :roll:
Sorry Lena, but I'm taking General Patreus's words over yours or any other liberal. He's a 4 star general. And besides, the purpose of the surge wasn't to get the Iraqi government to be independent and therefor end the civil war. That would have been an impossible goal to accomplish in such a short time period. The goal was to make Iraq more stable, as sectarian violence was getting out of control. We have succeded in that goal, although we still have a long way to go.
The three things that make life go round:

1. Sports
2. Politics
3. Sensuality

User avatar
Lena
Angel
 
Posts: 39589
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Kentucky , USA

Postby Lena on Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:26 am

A I recall the job of the surge was to quiet things down to let a governemnt come together in Iraq........................

I'm still waiting for that to happen :lol: . Maybe it will when hell freezes over or after one side wins in the civil war .

No matter who is elected in '08 we will leave , the peopel want out and the army can't hold up . Then the Republicans and right wing radio guys can lie saying we won but the liberals caused us to run .................... :lol:

Coming up next ..........................Iran !!!
Alive in spite of myself and looking at the world .........

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:52 am

Did you really think that post was worth typing?

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests