What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Trebuchet · 2004-05-17 15:23:18

You think Colonel Anonymous was the recipient of such a message? :laugh:

As for Clark, well, it's obvious he's drawing very different conclusions from the same data. As I could sit here and refine and explain all day and he'd have issues with it, because he's obviously got his own opinion, I'll just smoke it out in the open so we can all save time:

What options, military and political, do YOU deem expedient in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist event?

Bill White · 2004-05-17 15:26:56

Guys, guys, guys. . .

We do stuff like that and its no oil for twenty years. Saudi oil passes through a small number of terminals. Sabotage those places and. . . no oil for anyone.

clark · 2004-05-17 15:33:00

What options, military and political, do YOU deem expedient in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist event?

Don't blink. :;):

Dude, I don't know why you think I am drawing different conclusions from the same data. I'm agreeing that a nuclear response is likely. Helloooo. I'm also suggesting that such a response is stupid, and that it will not achieve the desired results.

Will it make us feel better? Yeah, for the thirty minutes it takes for the missles to reach their target. After that? Well, it is all FUBAR.

Bill White · 2004-05-17 15:33:36

What I don't understand is why he hasn't specifically told whatever nations are on the list "If an American city is mysteriously destroyed, we're holding YOU accountable" and used this to back them off supporting terrorism.
For all we know this may well have been communicated to certain dictators who will remain nameless. There is a great deal going on behind the scenes that we never hear about in mainstream sources, for good reason.

Now what if bin Laden finds that list and decides he wants that particular Muslim leader removed? Get the USA to do it for him.

Destruction of an Islamic city would be good for al Qaeda recruitment.

= = =

Over a year ago I wrote that 9/11 may have been done, in part, to goad GWB into whacking Saddam in order to create the chaos we see today.

Bill White · 2004-05-17 15:36:11

What options, military and political, do YOU deem expedient in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist event?
Don't blink. :;):
Dude, I don't know why you think I am drawing different conclusions from the same data. I'm agreeing that a nuclear response is likely. Helloooo. I'm also suggesting that such a response is stupid, and that it will not achieve the desired results.
Will it make us feel better? Yeah, for the thirty minutes it takes for the missles to reach their target. After that? Well, it is all FUBAR.

My suggestion? Hug some Europeans. Seek an Article V NATO response.

Bottom line, even if we and the EU-nics disagree about Kyoto and the death penalty for criminals, we share more in common with the people of Europe than anywhere else on Earth.

Except maybe Canada (dang bacon lovers) and the Aussies.

clark · 2004-05-17 15:44:23

My suggestion? Hug some Europeans. Seek an Article V NATO response.
Bottom line, even if we and the EU-nics disagree about Kyoto and the death penalty for criminals, we share more in common with the people of Europe than anywhere else on Earth.
Except maybe Canada (dang bacon lovers) and the Aussies.

I agree.

Turn the other cheek and retake the ground for moral superiority. "No, criminals and terroists kill and mame innocent people without regard. We do not."

That was the opening theme of 9/11, and the world followed us... till Iraq. Then we overplayed our hand. We used up our good will and understanding on "pre-emptive strikes" based on inaccurate and faulty data.

Destroying a city in kind as retribution does not serve our cause. It should be unthinkable because it is the thinking of the enemy. Don't you guys see this?

Cooler heads need to prevail, so keep yours if the time comes.

Palomar · 2004-05-17 17:14:09

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … gn]Ah-nuld says "hasta la vista, baby" ?

*Well, well...Arnold was "pumping up" for Bush-41. I think for Dubya too, in 2000 (can't remember).

More handwriting on the wall?

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-17 18:19:01

More on http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld … es]efforts to annoy Brazil.

Fast forward to the 21st century, when Greenpeace is working with the Brazilian government to keep its most valuable tree, the big leaf mahogany, in the ground instead of in American homes.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 18:28:50

Dude, I don't know why you think I am drawing different conclusions from the same data. I'm agreeing that a nuclear response is likely. Helloooo. I'm also suggesting that such a response is stupid, and that it will not achieve the desired results.
Will it make us feel better? Yeah, for the thirty minutes it takes for the missles to reach their target. After that? Well, it is all FUBAR.

On this one I'm right there with you. In order to minimize the damage to us, we'd have to launch an overwhelming strike against multiple nations. The (full) nuclear option would be a bad decision in a big pile of bad decisions. But all too possible, should things deteriorate far enough. Lesser nuclear responses are perhaps less ripe with folly, but more likely.

...We have Corsican cheeses too, but they aren't allowed by Geneva convention on Armaments, as inhumane weapons

:laugh:

Hopefully we can keep the atomic smiting to a minimum.

Trebuchet · 2004-05-17 20:27:03

Dude, I don't know why you think I am drawing different conclusions from the same data. I'm agreeing that a nuclear response is likely. Helloooo. I'm also suggesting that such a response is stupid, and that it will not achieve the desired results.

That would be why I draw that conclusion. :laugh:

You know what our most likely response is, but you must feel there's a better response (otherwise you'd not think the nuclear one is 'stupid')

Anyways, there's five different scenarios that could credibly transpire after a nuclear attack:

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE: Not really singing Kumbaya together. The option here is simple: Let them (the Middle East) rot. As pointed out by someone else, revulsion and hate will be generalized to Arabs even if it's only terrorist wackos. Noncitizens from the Middle East would be deported, possibly even citizens, depending on the level of national outrage. US policy and power would be hellbent on marginalizing the Middle East and making it a dirt poor backwater no one cares about, instead of a place where strategically important oil is. The possibilities here lie from pursuing energy autarky to possibly just grabbing the oilfields (cut China and Russia in on the action, there's plenty for all, and no one will screw with you). Very unlikely, to say the least, but I have heard this variant of 'screw you' expressed with regards to the Middle East. Benefits: Low casualties, is probably acceptable to all Americans and even Europeans, even if most would like a more bellicose response. Disadvantage: Does not totally neutralize terrorists.

HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB: Armageddon option, bombs fall like rain, and between Israel and India pretty much everyone is dead. The US has a pile of sanctions slapped on it and retreats further into isolationism; the world economy goes into a horrible depression. The aftermath of the whole mess has to be resolved by generational turnover. Benefits: International terrorism is certainly dead. Disadvantage: Lots of other things are dead, too: whole countries, international trade, and much cooperation.

TITS FOR TAT - Limited nuclear response. The most likely candidate for helping the terrorists with WMD has its capital city, army, and possibly other assets fried. Benefits: Sends strong message, not blatantly genocidal like the full nuke option above. Probably produces more "Libya" type defections from radical Islam. Disadvantages: Could make extremists even angier, if that's physically possible

YOU WANT ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE, YOU GOT IT, ***** - Here the US decides that if its enemies are going to go the path of using asymmetry, they will, too. There are indications the US is already doing this in Iraq with a new weapon called Viper Strike, essentially a flying assassin robot. Some reports say that the Pentagon is considering mating Viper Strike with face recognition software. In the aftermath of a nuclear strike on America, the US, if following this path, starts mass producing them by the boatload and letting them loose to stalk and kill terrorists throughout the Middle East, and comes up with other nasty semi-conventional strategies. The War on Terror turns into the first worldwide shadow war. Benefits: Reasonably civilian-kind on our part. Being stalked by mechanical killers has a definite psychological impact above and beyond merely being bombed. Americans unlikely to care about how many robots died in a foreign country. Disadvantages: Will annoy the hell out of ME countries to have US robot assassins endlessly violating their airspace, so countries might increase support of terrorist groups. Might need to be combined with Osirak-style raids on WMD production sites.

CONVENTIONAL WAR - With possible nuclear strikes against stuff way out in the boonies. This would be basically what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan on a somewhat grander scale. Would require a larger US buildup of troops, so I would expect the draft to be reintroduced, etc. Would take a few years but would definitely crush countries and overrun them, as the military superiority is too overwhelming. Benefits: It will not freak out the rest of the world... probably. Success is pretty much guaranteed, if somewhat slow. Disadvantages: It is somewhat slow, and costly.

I view limited response or a conventional war to be the most likely outcomes, but the first and fourth are interesting alternatives. Non-facial recongition Viper Strike units have apparently been used with some success in Iraq; they are too small and too quiet to be seen, and attack with what is essentially a laser guided hand grenade.

Mundaka · 2004-05-17 22:32:51

Trebuchet · 2004-05-17 22:56:53

One thing needs to be made clear: Great power declines come in two kinds, the relative and the absolute.

I really don't think I need to explain the 'absolute' kind. That's the classic Fall-of-Rome type where the great power in question suddenly comes unglued.

The other is the relative decline, which is what happened to Britain for the most part. Remember that power doesn't come from territory, power comes from the capability to enact your will, whether or not this capability is actually used. Tiny Venice was equal to the vast Ottoman Empire in the Mediterranean for a long period of time, remember. In the long run, of course, fortune favors the bloat, which tends to stack the deck in favor of nations like the US, Russia, China, and India, who are huge w/o colonial possessions. But it's not neccessary. Britain in 1945 had all the strength it had in 1938 relative to many countries, such as France and most other countries. It was quite strong.

But it did not have overwhelming power; it could not turn that strength into the ability to exert its will on world affairs. It had less to do with Britain than it did with the sheer power that both the United States and Russia commanded. It suffered a relative loss of Great Power status, which is tacitly admitted by the very term 'superpower' which got attached to the US and Russia.

To bring this back to your original question about the US declining, I argued that there were no structural reasons the US would suffer a sudden decline of the absolute kind. It's also true, however, that the appearance of a rival superpower is fairly low on the probability meter, and the appearance of an 'ultrapower', a state with as much power relative to the US as the US had to Britain at the end of WWII (the neccessary condition for a relative decline) is about as close to zero as possible; think for a minute of the sheer bulk of the US economy and military strength and then think of what it would take not just to equal that but dwarf it. It ain't happening.

The worst case scenario for relative power loss is that China and India catch up economically and the world returns to Cold War style staring contests internationally. In such a scenario, the US and EU would probably suddenly forget about their disagreements again. But even that would be something that would occur in the 2050-2075 timeframe.

Euler · 2004-05-17 23:16:24

In terms of relative power, Briton was much weaker in 1938 than it was in 1900. In 1900, the Royal Navy could simultaneously take on any two opposing navies in the world and expect to win. However, at about this time the US, Germany, and Japan were starting huge periods of military and economic growth. By the end of WWI, the US navy had achieved mathematical parity with the British, and the Japanese were not far behind. With the Germany rearming and the Russians industrializing, by 1938 Briton was arguably the weakest of the 5 great powers.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-18 07:10:12

Great post Trebuchet, re. the "five scenarios."

Of course if we have robots that can operate reasonably unsupervised the entire formula changes.

I've always had a soft spot for big space lasers too, But just for the sake of argument let's focus on the "conventional war" option with limited nuclear strikes. After this war, and I mean in general, not just Iraq has drawn on for a few more years I expect that limited tactical nuclear strikes will happen. We've already used the biggest conventional bombs ever made and, well... they've been kinda disappointing. Next time we need to pound an Osama bin Hidin' holed up in a cave network or maybe even a bunker, low-yield nukes are going to be on the "maybe" section of the options list, moving up from "oh Hell no." In five years we'll be doing stuff that seems excessive today, and the same people currently complaining about all the setbacks will be raging against the means of our progress. It's just the nature of such things.

As for the Brits losing power after WWII rather than upon their entry into it, that's kinda like saying that it wasn't Robert who stole my bananas, it was Bob: once they got pulled into that malstrom the sun set on the empire, regardless of the fact that it took another 7 years to become obvious -- and I know these things because I possess 20/20 hindsight, buster.

Here's something to consider though. Before the outbreak of war the British Empire was not in serious danger of collapse. It was the direct result of the war. Now why did they get dragged in to that war?

Because Germany and Russia invaded Poland, and Britain adhered to its treaty obligations, but only in respect to Germany. It's not widely known that there was serious debate over whether to declare war on Germany, Russia, or both. It had also been seriously debated declaring war on Russia after they had invaded Finland. So why Poland this time and why did Russia get a pass?

Many in the British government did not want war with Germany. Few Germans wanted war with Britain, Hitler himself reguarly spoke of a balance wherein Germany would hold dominance on the continent and Britain would continue its naval supremacy. Trade between the two empires was hoped to be profitable for both.

Now, I'm not defending Nazi Germany. They needed to be stopped, it should have been done sooner. But they were no worse than Stalinist Russia. Germany was certainly closer and posed a more obvious risk territorially speaking, but many in the British government viewed Germany as a buffer against the Soviet Union.

But Churchill wanted them taken out. He pushed the war on Germany. That war resulted in bombing of England, fighting in some of the colonies (also the Pacific theater, related to the same causes) and taking attention away from independence movements. Churchill's war destroyed the Nazis, but it cost the Empire. Was it a service to humanity? In some respects, but millions living under communist oppression for half a century probably didn't think so.

And the lesson? Perhaps suprising coming from myself, one man pushing a just but unecessary war can break a mighty empire. Its execution is never so clean nor its results so pure as intended. So let's get this over with, whatever it takes.

clark · 2004-05-18 09:20:37

Flying killing machines, dry rot, and nuclear fire of some sort depending on our mood...

"GIVE PEACE A CHANCE:" Or, let them rot in the hot desert sun. Sure, plausible. Yes, many would prefer to wipe our hands of the whole affair. However, it does nothing to reduce future terroist threats. A withdrawl, as this would have us do would be seen as a defeat by those who attack us. Taking oil fields, in whatever deal you might imagine, would be seen as a naked act of aggression. It would incite further violence as we don the trappings of an Imperial power. But I understand, they think that anyway, so why not just come out and be what they already think us to be. Terroism root cause is one of poverty, ignorance, and a lack of opportunity. Looting the place or closing it off to the outside world will only increase these causes, and America will be made the scapegoat (as it is now). This plan also fails to address the demographic shift that is occuring within the ESA- a large Muslim population is growing.

"HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB:"
Just stupid. Why not just go village to village, line up all the townspeople, and shoot them one by one? At least there isn't any radioactive fallout. I know, I know, too messy, not effecient. It is exactly this reasoning that terroists use in justifying their own actions against US civilians. I know quite a few Americans see nothing but "rag-heads" out there, but you're talking about wiping out millions of people.

"TITS FOR TAT" Again, stupid. Wiping out hundreds of thousands of people in an act of vengence who had nothing to do with the attack is wrong. We become the terroists, only we are far more dangerous. What will we base our nuclear strike choices on? Our intelligence? Terroists have no capitals, no standing armies in barraks, nothing. We vaporize a city, and everyone else will call for our blood, and we give the terroists one more point to sell to disgruntled ignorants on why they should hate and kill America.

"YOU WANT ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE, YOU GOT IT, ***** "

Viper Strike is a bomb droped from a plane on or near a target in an urban area. It requires a person to "lase" the target. Enough of the robo-tech fantasy.

"CONVENTIONAL WAR" Or, what we are doing now (including asymmetrical warfare, as in the non-robot variety )

In the event of a dirty bomb or a terroist attack using some form of WMD on an American city, the appropriate response would be to continue our progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps take the asymmetrical warfare up a notch and completely ignore national borders of friends and enemies alike (I'm sure we have provisions within NATO, so really, non-NATO countries are the real issue). In other words, "Don't blink".

The terroists are looking to intimadate us, and will try to force a particular response. See how readily most take to a nuclear retaliation of some sort. This is exactly what they might hope for, and is exactly what we should not do.

DonPanic · 2004-05-18 09:53:30

LO
I have learned, with the greatest relief, that Iraqi prisonners will not be submited any more to 72 hours of loud bluegrass music,
which is among the most shocking experiences a non american folk can endure. ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-18 10:20:39

The terroists are looking to intimadate us, and will try to force a particular response. See how readily most take to a nuclear retaliation of some sort. This is exactly what they might hope for, and is exactly what we should not do.

We don't want to go too far in any particular case, but escalation in response is necessary. Ideally, we should have a smooth gradation of increasing force, yet give the impression to the enemy that we're being a bit haphazard and flaky about it.

Maybe we'll do nothing... maybe we'll turn Mecca to a smoking hole. We know, but they don't need to. A point where the average arab sees us responding with precise but brutal force to every single act of terrorism against us. Get them thinking "would you quit provoking them before they really get mad." In short, make the average Middle Easterner begin to think about us like the American Left thinks about terrorists.

I have learned, with the gratest relief, that Iraqi prisonners will not be submited any more to 72 hours of loud bluegrass music,
which is among the most shocking experiences a non american folk can endure.

Yes, we wouldn't want to shock them would we... :hm: Might make the terrorists uncomfortable, this will not do... Allah forbid.

Alt2War · 2004-05-18 15:20:17

LO
I have learned, with the greatest relief, that Iraqi prisonners will not be submited any more to 72 hours of loud bluegrass music,
which is among the most shocking experiences a non american folk can endure. ???

I absolutely LOVE bluegrass!

Bill White · 2004-05-18 18:42:23

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/dulut … tm]Chalabi out?

Mundaka · 2004-05-19 01:26:42

Mundaka · 2004-05-19 01:39:18

Trebuchet · 2004-05-19 02:58:05

Actually, I recently saw a report saying that the military had all the recruits it needed. Looking it up now so you have a link...

Or maybe I can't find the damn thing. Someone needs to develop a Google variant that searches only your Temporary Internet Files folder. This site talks about the US military's oversupply of recruits, but the site I was looking for in my Internet History was an actual official site. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm]Some Site

Re-enlistments are at an all-time high. In fact, the Air Force found themselves in the embarrassing position of having too many troops this year (2004), and are actively encouraging several thousands to apply for early discharge. Recruiting is doing so well this year (2004), that new recruits, who are accepted, often have to wait six or seven months in the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) in order for a "slot" to open up for them.

So we aren't low on soldiers, at least.

As far as your other question: I've heard that Hitler wanted peaceful relations with Great Britain myself, and I believe that. Part of the reason he stopped the tanks at Dunkirk - apart from Goering's insistance that he could crush them by air power alone - was that he thought slaughtering the British troops would make it difficult to reach a negotiated peace with them. Another reason is Hitler's bizzare Germanic racism; as "Anglo-Saxons" were of Germanic stock, he felt they would be natural allies of his empire.

However, apart from Mosley's kooks (Sir Oswald Mosley (I believe that's the name) was a British fascist) I don't really think there were that many British people enamored of the idea. The British didn't want war for the sensible reason that it would get a lot of people killed. Remember that WWI, with its static, relatively immobile lines and senseless slaughter were still fresh in the memory of the British. Churchill was turned to because peace was no longer possible, as the invasion of Poland showed, and large numbers would die anyways.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 05:34:16

Cobra, do you have some sources on the quote above?

I'll have to search through my unorganized stack of books, but I'll get back to you as soon as I have specific sources.

Anyway he claimed that England and Japan had planned Pearl Harbor together -- with the knowledge of the American military -- and then Churchill backed out at the last minute because he didn't want to play second fiddle to Hitler.

That's kooky. Churchill and Roosevelt both had a serious personal desire to break the Nazis but I've seen no credible evidence that either was conspiring to trick their people into it.

However, apart from Mosley's kooks (Sir Oswald Mosley (I believe that's the name) was a British fascist) I don't really think there were that many British people enamored of the idea. The British didn't want war for the sensible reason that it would get a lot of people killed.

Early on, that was Mosley's motivation as well, simply to avoid fighting another war with Germany when the greater threat of Soviet Russia grew. The average Briton was not eager for war at all, least of all with Germany. Unfortunately for Mosley (and fascism in general) he increasing fell into the Nazi orbit as time wore on. As soon as he starting ranting and raving about Jewish conspiracies (this from a group that had been previously referred to as the "British Jewnion of Fascists" for its fairly high number of Jewish members/supporters) he was over as a serious voice.

Churchill was turned to because peace was no longer possible, as the invasion of Poland showed, and large numbers would die anyways.

Hitler overplayed his hand with Poland, expecting the Allies to back off as they had on previous occasions. But it did not mean that peace was impossible, as early as the 1920's (check Mein Kampf if you can stand its choppy, awkward prose) Hitler's war plans revolved around expansion to the east and that never really changed. France was the exception of course, but there were other issues at play in that case, unfinished business from the previous war among others.

We can't know what the costs would have been, probably not measurably better but it could hardly be worse if a more 'rational' approach had been taken. Britain focusing on the threat the Japanese posed to the Empire, the United States focusing on the aggressor (Japan) and Germany left to bloody itself against Russia until both are beat to exhaustion.

Now we're arguing about wars that ended over half a century ago... :rant: No hope for us here...

Palomar · 2004-05-19 07:24:38

Now we're arguing about wars that ended over half a century ago... :rant: No hope for us here...

*Um, yeah. Ask me if I really care about Churchill & Co. when I read stuff like this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 6]Al-Qaida seeks attack on U.S. soil.

I know we've seen similar headlines in the past many months, but this one has a different "ring" to it, to me...(worrisome and more "legit").

What retaliatory measures do you think the U.S. would take, if we did sustain a chemical attack?

I think Election Day in November might be a prime targeted time.

::shakes head::

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 07:58:57

WASHINGTON - The top intelligence official at the Homeland Security Department, worried about an increased risk of attack in coming months, says al-Qaida wants to strike on U.S. soil with something other than a conventional explosive — perhaps with a chemical or biological weapon.

Well, not exactly a new development. I sincerely hope they have little more to go on.

As for response to a chemical attack, it depends on how big it is. I don't think it would lead to a nuclear response, but it would be a big step in that direction. It would bring the average American closer to the mindset of "hey, these bastards aren't playing by the rules, why should we?" When that happens... Tactical nukes are shuffled into the deck.

I think Election Day in November might be a prime targeted time.

I'd expect maybe two days before. On election day loses much of its effect as far as influencing the election goes. Many will have already voted, others won't hear about it till later in the day, still more will be too shocked to let fear overcome laziness so quickly.

The vibe I get just from the general climate is the First of Nov. morning, in a major city; probably New York or L.A., maybe Chicago. Detroit if the heat is really on the terrorists and they feel the need to seek a secondary target. Lot's of Middle Easterners, fairly easy to blend.

Gas masks and chemical suits for Halloween? ???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-05-17 15:23:18

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#177 2004-05-17 15:26:56

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#178 2004-05-17 15:33:00

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#179 2004-05-17 15:33:36

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#180 2004-05-17 15:36:11

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#181 2004-05-17 15:44:23

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#182 2004-05-17 17:14:09

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#183 2004-05-17 18:19:01

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#184 2004-05-17 18:28:50

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#185 2004-05-17 20:27:03

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#186 2004-05-17 22:32:51

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#187 2004-05-17 22:56:53

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#188 2004-05-17 23:16:24

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#189 2004-05-18 07:10:12

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#190 2004-05-18 09:20:37

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#191 2004-05-18 09:53:30

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#192 2004-05-18 10:20:39

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#193 2004-05-18 15:20:17

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#194 2004-05-18 18:42:23

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#195 2004-05-19 01:26:42

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#196 2004-05-19 01:39:18

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#197 2004-05-19 02:58:05

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#198 2004-05-19 05:34:16

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#199 2004-05-19 07:24:38

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#200 2004-05-19 07:58:57

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Board footer