Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 12:06:31 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
That all looks pretty obvious now -- but the Americans (GWB & Co.) underestimated the sectarian hatreds and what would happen with a Western created power vacuum. Patreaus closed the gap -- but when the US withdrew, there was no mechanism to mediate the two hostile groups.

A continued US presence might have bridged a gap toward stability or merely postponed the inevitable hostilities.

Funny, Maliki just looks like a person you can't trust. Maybe that's me projecting. Something about his shifty eyes and false smile.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 8/13/2014 12:07:50 PM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 12:36:55 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


WW2 seems much different to me in that there was no prospect of Western Europe turning the tide against the Germans - not without the Americans.

The russians did not seem to have all that much trouble with the germans.





Surely not the case.

The Germans steam-rollered them in 1941 and 1942.

The Russians only really got their act together when the NKVD basically said: "one step forward and you may survive; one step back and you will definitely be shot by your own".

The Russians took the brunt granted, but the Americans, and to a lesser extent the British, supplied them with food and armoured vehicles when it was going so well for them.

The Germans succumbed to logistics and weight of numbers in the end.

Either way, none of this detracts from the fact that the Americans made a big effort in Europe WW2, far outweighing what they did in WW1.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 1:24:09 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The russians did not seem to have all that much trouble with the germans.





Surely not the case.

The Germans steam-rollered them in 1941 and 1942


That is the story the history channel would have us believe.
The facts are that two months into the invasion of the soviet union the german army had filled up 62,000 body bags with german soldier's bodies. By the time guderian reched moscow the body bag lotto had been won by more than 150,000 german soldiers. The battle for moscow cost guderian another 250,000 body bags and 90,000 more as he was chased out of town. Remember that germany was only about 50 million people and the entire invasion of the ussr had less than four million men in all three army groups.
The army group north spent almost three years shitting in their mess kits in front of st. petersberg filling up body bags with germans and failing to gain a phoquing inch on st.petersberg.
The following year the germans lost the 6th army nearly a half million men at stalingrad. The following summer at kursk, the largest tank battle in the history of the world, the germans found out that their little punk pop gun was no match for the russian tu 34.
Amerikan lend lease did not start reaching the soviet union until 1944 through the rail line through iran. All that got there before was just a dribble.
Because of the so called "cold war" nothing good could be said or published about the "ebil commies" consequently many in the west have a jaundiced view of ww2. Total u.s. casualities on all fronts amount to about a quarter of a million. The russians on the other hand suffered over 25 million casualities. Eight millions of their soldiers and another 17+ millions of their people who were found guilty by the nazis of being russian in public.


The Russians only really got their act together when the NKVD basically said: "one step forward and you may survive; one step back and you will definitely be shot by your own".

This is a myth that I have never seen any proof of. I have, however, seen actual battle orders from u.s. generals directing artillery fire on any position that retreated. I am thinking here specifically of gen. chesty puller usmc at the battle of chosin resovoir during the korean war.


The Germans succumbed to logistics and weight of numbers in the end.

The germans went to an ass kicking contest barefoot. They spent twenty years in russia practicing their tank tactics and thought the russians were too dumb to notice.

Either way, none of this detracts from the fact that the Americans made a big effort in Europe WW2, far outweighing what they did in WW1.


True but miniscule in comparrison to the russians/ussr.



(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 1:43:11 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


That is the story the history channel would have us believe.




The history channel? It's a well documented fact aired by military historians. I don't recall the exact figures but the Russians were surrendering in the hundreds of thousands in the summer and autumn of 1941. German mobilised units pushed that far ahead that they ran out of petrol and the infantry couldn't keep up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The facts are that two months into the invasion of the soviet union the german army had filled up 62,000 body bags with german soldier's bodies.



Small beer compared with the amount of Russians who were killed and surrendered. The Russians couldn't live with the Germans for a long while.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The following summer at kursk, the largest tank battle in the history of the world, the germans found out that their little punk pop gun was no match for the russian tu 34.



It was over by then. Their chance came and went outside Moscow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Amerikan lend lease did not start reaching the soviet union until 1944 through the rail line through iran. All that got there before was just a dribble.



The Americans supplied them with substantial resources. The Russians thought they were giving them the stuff the Americans didn't want, granted, but it was far better than what they had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The Russians only really got their act together when the NKVD basically said: "one step forward and you may survive; one step back and you will definitely be shot by your own".

This is a myth that I have never seen any proof of. I have, however, seen actual battle orders from u.s. generals directing artillery fire on any position that retreated. I am thinking here specifically of gen. chesty puller usmc at the battle of chosin resovoir during the korean war.



It is a well documented fact.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

They spent twenty years in russia practicing their tank tactics and thought the russians were too dumb to notice.




The Germans and the Russians co-operated during the 1920's when the Germans were restricted in terms of their armed forces. The Germans trained them in return for vehicles and the like to practice with.

As a result they were well versed in one another's capabilities.

On the back of this experience, German generals felt they were a tough lot and would be a tough nut to crack, which is partly why some German generals were highly sceptical of the wisdom of invading Russia. But then some thought invading France was a bad idea.

If Russia was a smaller country with a smaller population, and closer to Germany, then the Germans would have demolished them within a summer. No doubt.


< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 8/13/2014 1:45:09 PM >


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 2:34:24 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


The history channel? It's a well documented fact aired by military historians. I don't recall the exact figures but the Russians were surrendering in the hundreds of thousands in the summer and autumn of 1941. German mobilised units pushed that far ahead that they ran out of petrol and the infantry couldn't keep up.


The russians were surrendering by the tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands. Remember though that the soviet union had about four or five times as many people to draw from.
The german mobile armor did not run out of fuel. Hitler stopped guderian because he was more than a hundred miles in front of his infantry and both flanks were wide open. Hitler had guderian wheel south and take kiev and remove the threat on his southern flank





quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The facts are that two months into the invasion of the soviet union the german army had filled up 62,000 body bags with german soldier's bodies.



Small beer compared with the amount of Russians who were killed and surrendered. The Russians couldn't live with the Germans for a long while.


While the relative numbers show clearly that the russians were loosing more men the germans were loosing men that they could not replace. They had lost more than ten percent of their entire invasion force by the end of the first six months of war and they had fuck all to show for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The following summer at kursk, the largest tank battle in the history of the world, the germans found out that their little punk pop gun was no match for the russian tu 34.



It was over by then. Their chance came and went outside Moscow.


Quite clearly. Everything after that was too little too late.



quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Amerikan lend lease did not start reaching the soviet union until 1944 through the rail line through iran. All that got there before was just a dribble.



The Americans supplied them with substantial resources.

Not until the war was nearly over.

The Russians thought they were giving them the stuff the Americans didn't want, granted, but it was far better than what they had.


The pos p 40&39 that the brits refused from the u.s. and passed on to the russians were no match for the real airplanes the russians had. Like the sturmovik, and the yak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The Russians only really got their act together when the NKVD basically said: "one step forward and you may survive; one step back and you will definitely be shot by your own".

This is a myth that I have never seen any proof of. I have, however, seen actual battle orders from u.s. generals directing artillery fire on any position that retreated. I am thinking here specifically of gen. chesty puller usmc at the battle of chosin resovoir during the korean war.



It is a well documented fact.

I have found that many "wel documented facts" are not. That it happened I do not doubt because of my background in the military I have first hand knowledge of this. Generally though it is the action of a local commander and not a function of policy from the top. There are numerous cases where the russians came up against stiff resistance and had to retreat. The battle for warsaw comes to mind.
Wally model chucked a monkey wrench into the russian advance(model was a master at the defense) when he set up a "prevent defense" in their path of advance. It took them nearly a month to clear the little punk out.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

They spent twenty years in russia practicing their tank tactics and thought the russians were too dumb to notice.




The Germans and the Russians co-operated during the 1920's when the Germans were restricted in terms of their armed forces. The Germans trained them in return for vehicles and the like to practice with.

Not exactly. The secret treaty allowed the germans to practice with their own hardware. Stalin was not about to let the nazi's see his kewel shit. The germans did not share their training with the russians. The russians spied on them and followed their training regimins. The russians took a different lesson from this than did germany. The germans (guderian,manstien) liked tanks massed for the attack. Russia on the other hand felt that the tank should be organic to the infantry and dispersed amongst them to protect them.
Kursk would be the exception here because it was primarily a tank battle.


As a result they were well versed in one another's capabilities.

The russians yes. They fully understood the german war machine. The germans on the other hand bellieved their own propaganda which depicted the russians as intellectually deficient and thus not capable of understanding modern mililtary stratigy and tactics.

On the back of this experience, German generals felt they were a tough lot and would be a tough nut to crack, which is partly why some German generals were highly sceptical of the wisdom of invading Russia. But then some thought invading France was a bad idea.

The generals who counted, guderian, manstein,bock,kesselring and rommel(among others) all felt that the job would be done by christmas 41.

If Russia was a smaller country with a smaller population, and closer to Germany, then the Germans would have demolished them within a summer. No doubt.


I believe it was in the fall of 1940 that stalin had zhuchove, tomishinko and pavlov war game the german invasion.
It would make sense that stalin had read hitlers book and consequently knew of hitlers plans for russia and the russians.
The war games on the sand table showed that the zhuchove plan to entice the germans all the way to moscow before taking to a full engagement was the only way to destroy the german army. Trying to stop the assault would be useless except in terms of attrition and lengthining the german supply line.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 4:55:06 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The russians were surrendering by the tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands.



More than 600,000 surrendered at Kiev alone.

More than 600,000 outside Moscow.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 6:50:27 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The russians were surrendering by the tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands.



More than 600,000 surrendered at Kiev alone.


The russian armies at kiev only numbered about 600,000. Considering the ferocity of the battle it is unlikely that they all surrendered. Kiev was also the largest battle fought up until that time.

More than 600,000 outside Moscow.

I am pretty sure that the russians won that one so how do we get 600k surrendering? Some historians rate the death toll of the battle of moscow at about that number for the russians.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 8/13/2014 6:51:12 PM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/13/2014 6:55:07 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

WWII issues unrelated to the IRAQ war should be debated on another thread -- because at this point you are severely hijacking the subject matter. Making a sub-point is one thing -- but going on and on -- way off topic is another.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/14/2014 1:13:59 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

That all looks pretty obvious now -- but the Americans (GWB & Co.) underestimated the sectarian hatreds and what would happen with a Western created power vacuum. Patreaus closed the gap -- but when the US withdrew, there was no mechanism to mediate the two hostile groups.

A continued US presence might have bridged a gap toward stability or merely postponed the inevitable hostilities.

Funny, Maliki just looks like a person you can't trust. Maybe that's me projecting. Something about his shifty eyes and false smile.

Yes most of the points I made are pretty obvious now. But they were just as obvious prior to the invasion of Iraq, as those of us who opposed the invasion pointed out loudly and clearly at the time. The loonies of the right didn't listen.

If you recall, the neo cons were promising that the invaders would be welcomed as liberators and showered with flowers and kisses by the Iraqi masses, the price of oil would drop to $15 a barrel, democracy would magically happen and some even went so far as to anticipate an Israel friendly Iraqi Govt (as if .....!!!). None of that happened of course.

Instead the invasion generated opposition from every quarter in Iraq, (bar the Kurds, who ended up being the only winners insider Iraq), hundreds of thousands have died and whatever geopolitical gains were made have been long lost in the devastation. Iraq is now firmly within the Iranian sphere of influence, which must amuse the ayatollahs no end, Their greatest enemy has virtually given them a present of Iraq, they now dominate without spending a cent or shooting a single bullet.

The obvious lessons - that Western armies have no place in Muslim countries, that hostile military occupations generate terrorism, not deter it - have still to be learnt by the idiots who proposed and still support the invasion. At least Obama seems to have learnt something from the fiasco and refuses to get drawn into confrontations without working alliances with responsible local partners and a solid exit strategy.

And I am far from convinced that an ongoing US presence would have made much difference. The opportunities to avoid ending up in the current state occurred at the political level, not at a military level. Iraq's politicians show no sign of having the vision and acumen needed to convert those opportunities into realities.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 8/14/2014 1:26:00 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/14/2014 8:06:31 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

My main complaint about the right in the USA is how it trucks in bad information. The other problem with Americans is that they forget stuff too soon. Hence my inclination to remind everyone of what actually happened during the Iraq war.

Loved your comment on the other thread about pacifying Americans by lacing the drinking water with Valium. Must say I did not riot in protest over the Iraq war. Maybe that was a mistake.

Hillary, who voted for the war, is now criticizing Obama for its aftermath.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/14/2014 1:04:15 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


WWII issues unrelated to the IRAQ war should be debated on another thread -- because at this point you are severely hijacking the subject matter. Making a sub-point is one thing -- but going on and on -- way off topic is another.


No bother, Cloudboy, but can I just say to Thompson the Moscow one was a good hundred miles West of Moscow at a couple of towns and remains the biggest encirclement of an army in history. Kiev, your numbers are out to the tune of hundreds of thousands.

But, for another thread, and happy to comment on another thread.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/15/2014 7:28:19 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
For what it is worth, you are right and he is wrong. Hitler might have succeeded on the Western Front had he simply allowed his commanders to retreat. There were other problems: a two front war, alienating the local populations, and opening three fronts v. the Russians instead of one or two (Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad.)

Roy Medvedev would agree that the Russian won WWII but he argues mightily that it was in spite of Stalin's bumbling (which cost way too many lives.)

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 8/15/2014 7:29:50 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/15/2014 11:01:02 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
Forget the analysis by Frontline, forget date-by-date chronologies of the Iraq fiasco, here at last is the unblemished truth, the real reason why ISIL has achieved its stunning successes - Obama armed them!

Yes folks, Obama and 6 members of his Administration are card carrying Muslim Brotherhood members out to subvert the US from within and destroy democracy apple pie and all that - at least that is what this video claims to prove:

http://conservativepost.com/could-this-be-proof-that-obama-is-part-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Hilarious!




_____________________________



(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 8/15/2014 11:09:17 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL:cloudboy

For what it is worth, you are right and he is wrong. Hitler might have succeeded on the Western Front had he simply allowed his commanders to retreat. There were other problems: a two front war, alienating the local populations, and opening three fronts v. the Russians instead of one or two (Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad.)

Roy Medvedev would agree that the Russian won WWII but he argues mightily that it was in spite of Stalin's bumbling (which cost way too many lives.)
quote:

:cloudboy


WWII issues unrelated to the IRAQ war should be debated on another thread -- because at this point you are severely hijacking the subject matter. Making a sub-point is one thing -- but going on and on -- way off topic is another.


bite me.


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 8/15/2014 11:11:51 AM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 9/2/2014 3:40:05 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Barack doesn't seem to believe that W made the Middle East worse

In fact, he seems to think that things are going swimmingly over there

quote:

...the day Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” — Obama delivered a very different message when he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in New York’s Westchester County. “Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it’s been challenging for quite a while,” he said. “I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War.”


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 9/2/2014 4:46:07 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Barack doesn't seem to believe that W made the Middle East worse

In fact, he seems to think that things are going swimmingly over there

quote:

...the day Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” — Obama delivered a very different message when he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in New York’s Westchester County. “Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it’s been challenging for quite a while,” he said. “I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War.”


I don't know all the smart arsed debating terms that are used here, so I will have to make do with..

Twat

_____________________________


The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 9/2/2014 4:48:34 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Barack doesn't seem to believe that W made the Middle East worse

In fact, he seems to think that things are going swimmingly over there

quote:

...the day Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” — Obama delivered a very different message when he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in New York’s Westchester County. “Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it’s been challenging for quite a while,” he said. “I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War.”




Didn't Mr. Obama pretty much take victory laps over pulling all of the troops out of Iraq?

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 9/2/2014 4:50:36 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
In a speech at Ft. Bragg, NC on December 14, 2011, President Barack Obama said the United States was “leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 9/2/2014 4:56:51 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

In a speech at Ft. Bragg, NC on December 14, 2011, President Barack Obama said the United States was “leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”


What he wanted to say was that his predecessor was a fucking idiot who left him up to his neck in shit

_____________________________


The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ - 9/2/2014 5:16:12 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

In a speech at Ft. Bragg, NC on December 14, 2011, President Barack Obama said the United States was “leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”


What he wanted to say was that his predecessor was a fucking idiot who left him up to his neck in shit


How does that work. Barack is just too stoopid to say what he wanted to say? What he wanted to say never came up on his teleprompter?

Again,



quote:

...the day Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” — Obama delivered a very different message when he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in New York’s Westchester County. “Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it’s been challenging for quite a while,” he said. “I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War.”



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.105