Dark Lord Potter Forums
Go Back   Dark Lord Potter Forums > Common Room > Politics
Donate Register Rules Library List IRC Chat FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Donate to DLP Scryer Banner

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-29-2017, 10:17 AM   #81
Darth_Revan
Secret Squirrel
 
Darth_Revan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Empire City
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invictus View Post
Iraq was mostly a conventional war at start. Why wouldn't it hold somewhat?
Because, fundamentally, for peaceful post-war occupation, the population has to accept that they lost the war. When the Iraqi army was crushed and the government overthrown, the remnants of the army and the Baath Party and whatnot just melted back into the populace and started a guerrilla/terror war.

Quote:
US strategy to rush to the center was as damaging as the aftermath some say, since it didn't really let the US create stables positions and stabilize regions under it's occupation, special in a more through way.
I don't really know what you're trying to say, because we occupied the country quite thoroughly.
__________________

Peace is a lie, the greatest lie there is. The truth is strife. Struggle. Pain. Suffering.

And from that turmoil, power. The power to bend the universe to my will.

- Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith
Darth_Revan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 12:03 PM   #82
Invictus
Heir
 
Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cidade Maravilhosa
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
Because, fundamentally, for peaceful post-war occupation, the population has to accept that they lost the war. When the Iraqi army was crushed and the government overthrown, the remnants of the army and the Baath Party and whatnot just melted back into the populace and started a guerrilla/terror war.

I don't really know what you're trying to say, because we occupied the country quite thoroughly.
Pretty sure they less melt, and more like were thrown out and persecuted in petty tribal/religious revenge. @Xiph0 once threw me a really good article about, unfortunately can't find it. That in turn, exacerbated an already inflammatory conflict. That the regime placed by the US in turn engaged in the same kind of corruption and petty ethnic disputes that created the divide in the first place goes unmentioned. Oh and the US not placing the old Afghan King, someone still widely respected and seen as competent and a rare near unanimity in the divided country, back and instead opted for the massively corrupt and incompetent president was also a bad choice.

And uh. You didn't. First, the war was done was a mass rushing towards the vital points for the central regime, as it was planned for minimal casualties and duration. There were also only 150,000-200,00 troops occupying Iraq, if I'm not mistaken, a country with 40 million people and 168 thousand square miles of area.
Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 12:45 PM   #83
Darth_Revan
Secret Squirrel
 
Darth_Revan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Empire City
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invictus View Post
Pretty sure they less melt, and more like were thrown out and persecuted in petty tribal/religious revenge. @Xiph0 once threw me a really good article about, unfortunately can't find it. That in turn, exacerbated an already inflammatory conflict. That the regime placed by the US in turn engaged in the same kind of corruption and petty ethnic disputes that created the divide in the first place goes unmentioned. Oh and the US not placing the old Afghan King, someone still widely respected and seen as competent and a rare near unanimity in the divided country, back and instead opted for the massively corrupt and incompetent president was also a bad choice.

And uh. You didn't. First, the war was done was a mass rushing towards the vital points for the central regime, as it was planned for minimal casualties and duration. There were also only 150,000-200,00 troops occupying Iraq, if I'm not mistaken, a country with 40 million people and 168 thousand square miles of area.
Make up your mind, are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? We invaded Iraq with a little over 300 thousand.
__________________

Peace is a lie, the greatest lie there is. The truth is strife. Struggle. Pain. Suffering.

And from that turmoil, power. The power to bend the universe to my will.

- Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith
Darth_Revan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 12:54 PM   #84
Chengar Qordath
Auror
The Final Pony
 
Chengar Qordath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 619
High Score: 1,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taure View Post
Syria: example of how inaction leads to disaster.

Libya: example of how half-measures lead to disaster.

Iraq: example of how full invasion followed by premature withdrawal leads to disaster.

All of the above have failed. The only thing we haven't tried at this point is invading with the full knowledge and intention of occupying the invaded nation for 30+ years. And I'm pretty sure that will never be tried, given the expense involved, not to mention the inevitable accusations of neo-imperialism. If the US hadn't split its focus with Iraq, perhaps Afghanistan could have been an example of this.
Not helped by the fact that at this point, guerrilla warfare is seen as the best way to deal with any Western invasion. All you have to do is keep up the resistance until the US gets tired of spending money/lives and gives up. It's not hard to convince people that your guerrilla victory is inevitable when half the country invading you is opposed to the war and wants to know what the exit strategy is as soon as the first shots are fired.

One of the big issues with countering guerrilla warfare, as the US has had to learn, is the lack of any good PR points to help convince your own populace that you're winning. It's hard to convince a democratic populace to commit to anything for 30+ years, but especially something that costs lots of lives and money, and produces little in the way of tangible proof that it's working.
__________________
@Patreon: Link
Chengar Qordath is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 01:03 PM   #85
Invictus
Heir
 
Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cidade Maravilhosa
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,526
US people has this weird tendency of overestimating the effectiveness of Guerrilla warfare. You need massive civilian support, strong foreign backers to finance you or viable means to explore economically and favorable terrain. Usually only failing states, massively corrupt ones or simply very poor ones have deep problem with them.

Guerilla warfare also tends to be a disaster to the civilians, since it turns the focus on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
Make up your mind, are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? We invaded Iraq with a little over 300 thousand.
US effective was 192,000. British had 45,000. The rest were locals. Even then, I'm talking about effective occupying force.
Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 01:08 PM   #86
Darth_Revan
Secret Squirrel
 
Darth_Revan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Empire City
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741
DLP Supporter Donor Star
All this being as it may, I saw an article in the Independent this morning saying that Labour expected to overtake the Tories in the polls soon, and that the Tories also expected it to happen, but that they still had the electoral advantage because of FPTP voting.

What accounts for the Labour surge? It doesn't seem to be Corbyn, so it must be the Labour platform set out in the Manifesto. Which policies are driving this the most?
__________________

Peace is a lie, the greatest lie there is. The truth is strife. Struggle. Pain. Suffering.

And from that turmoil, power. The power to bend the universe to my will.

- Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith
Darth_Revan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 01:18 PM   #87
Dark Belra
Minister for Magic
 
Dark Belra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,203
From my understanding, it isn't so much that Labour are doing overly well so much as the Tories seem to be doing awful. Especially with the UK seeming to have an election every year or so, I think people are in the UK are just getting fed up with the Tories and Labour is just the next choice.

May also has the charisma of a dead fish that repeats the same stock lines.
__________________

Peace and Prosperity be damned.
Dark Belra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 01:21 PM   #88
Darth_Revan
Secret Squirrel
 
Darth_Revan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Empire City
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Also, UKIP leader Paul Nuttall supports torture and the death pnealty?

This smacks of desperation.
__________________

Peace is a lie, the greatest lie there is. The truth is strife. Struggle. Pain. Suffering.

And from that turmoil, power. The power to bend the universe to my will.

- Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith
Darth_Revan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 01:32 PM   #89
Chengar Qordath
Auror
The Final Pony
 
Chengar Qordath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 619
High Score: 1,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invictus View Post
US people has this weird tendency of overestimating the effectiveness of Guerrilla warfare. You need massive civilian support, strong foreign backers to finance you or viable means to explore economically and favorable terrain. Usually only failing states, massively corrupt ones or simply very poor ones have deep problem with them.

Guerilla warfare also tends to be a disaster to the civilians, since it turns the focus on them.
No surprise, given the US's history with it. Especially since it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy thanks to the nature of guerrilla wars. Since a lot of the US populace has some idea about guerrilla warfare being some sort of unstoppable super-tactic, the US tends to lack the willpower needed to see out a long, bloody, unpleasant counter-insurgency campaign.
__________________
@Patreon: Link
Chengar Qordath is online now   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 2 thumbs up
Old 05-29-2017, 02:30 PM   #90
Mordecai
Groundskeeper
Drunken Scotsman
 
Mordecai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Scotland
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 347
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 3,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
Also, UKIP leader Paul Nuttall supports torture and the death pnealty?

This smacks of desperation.
He can be as desperate as he wants, its unlikely he'll win a seat in Parliament regardless of his proposed policies. UKIP are going the way of the dodo thanks to the Tories approach to brexit.
__________________
'You may not be good at making friends,' whispered Parax. 'But by Heaven you are second to none
when it comes to making enemies.' Sword in the Storm, by David Gemmell
Mordecai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 02:41 PM   #91
Oment
Chief Warlock
The Betrayer
 
Oment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
All this being as it may, I saw an article in the Independent this morning saying that Labour expected to overtake the Tories in the polls soon, and that the Tories also expected it to happen, but that they still had the electoral advantage because of FPTP voting.

What accounts for the Labour surge? It doesn't seem to be Corbyn, so it must be the Labour platform set out in the Manifesto. Which policies are driving this the most?
Based on this, it seems to me that it's the national stuff, like NHS, care for the elderly, and so on. Barring the effective tie on education, there's a pretty clear split between national (Corbyn) and international (May) issues. There's also the general weariness with one party being in power for too long to consider - something Americans should know full-well - and while recent history does point towards that not being too much of an issue in the UK, I would also say that May is no Blair or Thatcher.

That being said, FPTP favoured the Tories in 2015 because Labour lost Scotland. Doesn't matter if you take a net of two seats from your main rival (and 22 from the imploding LibDems) if you lose 40 elsewhere and all that. If the SNP doesn't implode, which it doesn't look like, this will make it harder for Labour to get to 326. Brexit marginals might also be a thing, but Xepheria knows more about that.
__________________
Curse my sudden but inevitable betrayals.

~R.I.P. Oz's dick, 1990-2016.~
Oment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 03:52 PM   #92
Xiph0
Administrator
First Tovarisch
 
Xiph0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: People's Republic of California
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
Make up your mind, are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? We invaded Iraq with a little over 300 thousand.
He's correct about the Republican Guard not 'melting back' into guerrilla warfare. Had Paul Bremer known anything about Iraq before he started issuing decrees the same week he got off the plane, he wouldn't have fired the military on TV without disarming them, nor would we have put together a 'government' that was entirely Shiite (initially). GWB's responsibility lies in appointing him - it definitely created the insurgency that came about.

Frontline documentary with more primary footage and interviews.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyg View Post
As far as I can tell, Sree is some kind of racist joke.
Xiph0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 05-29-2017, 03:58 PM   #93
Taure
Death Eater
Magical Cores Are Real
 
Taure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 13,152
I wouldn't put too much stock in the rumours that Labour are about to pass Tories in the polls. Yes, there might be a single poll that puts Labour ahead, but you should expect the average of polls to continue to give the Tories a healthy lead.

The conspiracy theorist in me suspects that the "Labour lead" poll has been planted by the Tories in order to give complacent Tory voters a kick up the bum to get out and vote. A similar thing happened before the Scottish independence referendum - a single outlier poll shortly before polling day which scared "No" voters.

And of course national polls in a FPTP system divided into constituencies aren't the best indicator of actual election victory anyway.
__________________

HPATTGH: 1/35 Complete
Taure is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 2 thumbs up
Old 05-29-2017, 05:43 PM   #94
fire
High Inquisitor
 
fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 506
What is this nutter nonsense about how the US could have turned Iraq into post-war Japan/Germany if only they fully committed to it???

Japan and Germany were stable societies pre-war - a full functional state governing people that weren't ready to murderize each other on a dime.

Iraq, meanwhile, was basically Saddam Hussein as backed by the Sunni minority keeping the Shiites and Kurds quiescent via death squads, torture prisons and ultimately genocide. Once you lifted the Butcher of Baghdad's boot and freed the Shiites, they would not have settled for less than total political domination so they never get fucked by the Sunnis again. The Sunnis, meanwhile, know exactly what's in store for them, and so chose insurrection over Shiite oppression. And the rest, as they say, is history.

There are no good solutions. That is a fact.

As Taure has pointed, whatever you do (intervention, limited intervention, do nothing), bad stuff will still happen. For what it's worth I believe Obama was correct on Libya but wrong on Syria. Letting Gaddafi reduce Benghazi to rubble and ruin would not only have killed tens of thousands at least, it wasn't even clear that that would work - and if it didn't, you would have full blown civil war on your hands, ala Syria, as opposed to the low-intensity small-scale skirmishes we currently have (i.e. the situation is bad tilting into worse, but it's not catastrophic).

For Syria I don't see a path to peace. There's more to say but I'm too tired atm. tldr the Alawites will never give up because they justifiably believe that losing means their being ethnically cleansed; the Sunnis will never give up either because Assad raped and tortured and murdered their wives and children and neighbours; so the war will go on until Syria is nothing but ash and dust.
__________________
The road to hell is paved with good intentions,
the road to heaven with corpses.
fire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 07:02 PM   #95
Invictus
Heir
 
Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cidade Maravilhosa
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by fire View Post
What is this nutter nonsense about how the US could have turned Iraq into post-war Japan/Germany if only they fully committed to it???

Japan and Germany were stable societies pre-war - a full functional state governing people that weren't ready to murderize each other on a dime.

Iraq, meanwhile, was basically Saddam Hussein as backed by the Sunni minority keeping the Shiites and Kurds quiescent via death squads, torture prisons and ultimately genocide. Once you lifted the Butcher of Baghdad's boot and freed the Shiites, they would not have settled for less than total political domination so they never get fucked by the Sunnis again. The Sunnis, meanwhile, know exactly what's in store for them, and so chose insurrection over Shiite oppression. And the rest, as they say, is history.

There are no good solutions. That is a fact.

As Taure has pointed, whatever you do (intervention, limited intervention, do nothing), bad stuff will still happen. For what it's worth I believe Obama was correct on Libya but wrong on Syria. Letting Gaddafi reduce Benghazi to rubble and ruin would not only have killed tens of thousands at least, it wasn't even clear that that would work - and if it didn't, you would have full blown civil war on your hands, ala Syria, as opposed to the low-intensity small-scale skirmishes we currently have (i.e. the situation is bad tilting into worse, but it's not catastrophic).

For Syria I don't see a path to peace. There's more to say but I'm too tired atm. tldr the Alawites will never give up because they justifiably believe that losing means their being ethnically cleansed; the Sunnis will never give up either because Assad raped and tortured and murdered their wives and children and neighbours; so the war will go on until Syria is nothing but ash and dust.
You have no idea what was happening in Germany in the 1920s/30s, do you? And Japanese society was completely nuts, specially the military. Iraq was pretty stable, all things considered where it was. It wasn't African shit states level by fair, it is also very resource rich.
Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 08:17 PM   #96
Innomine
Auror
 
Innomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 629
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 4,500
Send a message via AIM to Innomine Send a message via MSN to Innomine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taure View Post
Syria: example of how inaction leads to disaster.

Libya: example of how half-measures lead to disaster.

Iraq: example of how full invasion followed by premature withdrawal leads to disaster.

All of the above have failed. The only thing we haven't tried at this point is invading with the full knowledge and intention of occupying the invaded nation for 30+ years. And I'm pretty sure that will never be tried, given the expense involved, not to mention the inevitable accusations of neo-imperialism. If the US hadn't split its focus with Iraq, perhaps Afghanistan could have been an example of this.
I'm not sure if you can rightly call the Syrian situation an example of inaction. There was/is too much politicking around the funding of separatist rebels, and the US policy that Assad must go was one of the leading causes of this. I would liken it more to Lybia, except with indirect military action, as opposed to direct.

Looking at the wider picture, however, we cannot forget that the tensions and dislike the middle east has of us are a result of almost a century of interference in their affairs. They (understandably) resent us for this. In this context, as you rightly point out, any action we take will almost certainly result in disaster.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, there are two real options that come out of this. 1) Not wasting resources on a conflict we cannot fix. 2) If we are going to interfere, there must be a significant benefit that is A) worth the cost, and B) aware of the potential repercussions. (EG, increased terrorism in the west or a refugee crisis). This is something that was either not considered, or was a complete failure, with the propagation of the Syrian civil war and the ensuing refugee crisis which has plagued Europe.

Corbyn's argument, I assume, runs along the former line of thinking.

@Invictus Your calls for an extended invasion and occupation of countries in the Middle East are questionable at best. Why would we want to do this? What tangible or intangible benefit is there that is worth the cost of both the money and lives involved in such an endeavour? Also, you forget the lessons we learnt from the Vietnam war, guerilla warfare is by far the best tactic to use against any western force considering the overwhelming power we have in conventional conflicts.
Innomine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 08:47 PM   #97
Arthellion
Seventh Year
 
Arthellion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 279
Being completely pragmatic and ignoring international response, if you are going to engage in conflict with the middle east, the solution which provides the west victory requires committing war crimes. Complete destruction of the middle eastern countries whether through carpet bombing or nuclear assault.

Since that is not an option...occupation is not an option...indirect action has bitten us in the butt...it stands to be reasonable that inaction is the best action to take.

Yet I'm not sure that is possible either.

The west is in a hard place with the middle east.
Arthellion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 08:58 PM   #98
Invictus
Heir
 
Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cidade Maravilhosa
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innomine View Post
I'm not sure if you can rightly call the Syrian situation an example of inaction. There was/is too much politicking around the funding of separatist rebels, and the US policy that Assad must go was one of the leading causes of this. I would liken it more to Lybia, except with indirect military action, as opposed to direct.

Looking at the wider picture, however, we cannot forget that the tensions and dislike the middle east has of us are a result of almost a century of interference in their affairs. They (understandably) resent us for this. In this context, as you rightly point out, any action we take will almost certainly result in disaster.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, there are two real options that come out of this. 1) Not wasting resources on a conflict we cannot fix. 2) If we are going to interfere, there must be a significant benefit that is A) worth the cost, and B) aware of the potential repercussions. (EG, increased terrorism in the west or a refugee crisis). This is something that was either not considered, or was a complete failure, with the propagation of the Syrian civil war and the ensuing refugee crisis which has plagued Europe.

Corbyn's argument, I assume, runs along the former line of thinking.

@Invictus Your calls for an extended invasion and occupation of countries in the Middle East are questionable at best. Why would we want to do this? What tangible or intangible benefit is there that is worth the cost of both the money and lives involved in such an endeavour? Also, you forget the lessons we learnt from the Vietnam war, guerilla warfare is by far the best tactic to use against any western force considering the overwhelming power we have in conventional conflicts.
How about fixing a region that has been a disaster for the last century? Occupations of S. Korea, Japan and Germany were wildly successful. Is it that hard for you to realize that past examples of success should be emulated?

The lesson we learned in Vietnam is the same lesson any strong power learns when it invades a poor country with a population that assumes that has nothing else to lose, keeps using indiscriminate force, has no desire to build a long term relationship with locals, has unmotivated troops who hate their job and keeps trying to prop up a wildly incompetent and corrupt and hated puppet government, it's called failing at politics and strategy. It's the same lesson the Soviets learned in the 80s in Afghanistan, it's the same lesson British learned in the Levant in the 20s, British in Ireland, Sri Lanka, it's the same lesson Rome learned in Germania. People will fight when pressed too hard, guerrilla might be the worse way to fight, but it's still better than nothing.

@Arthellion I will be frank. That was one of the most retarded shit I had to read here. By far. If you think Japanese or Nazi Germany mindset was much better than whatever goes through an average middle eastern... Destruction of infrastructure for no reason is retarded. It creates needless resentment, makes rebuilding harder and makes everything insanely more expensive.
Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 09:05 PM   #99
Arthellion
Seventh Year
 
Arthellion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invictus View Post

@Arthellion I will be frank. That was one of the most retarded shit I had to read here. By far. If you think Japanese or Nazi Germany mindset was much better than whatever goes through an average middle eastern... Destruction of infrastructure for no reason is retarded. It creates needless resentment, makes rebuilding harder and makes everything insanely more expensive.
Think you misunderstand me. We only beat the japanese after nuking the shit out of them. The Japanese peoples were fully prepared for a long protracted fight with us near the end of WWII. It was breaking the japanese spirit that caused them to be willing to accept defeat and begin the long process of recovery.

I don't think the mindset was better during that time. The mindsets are incredibly similar. The only way to beat the middle east is to break the spirit of the people.
I'm not advocating for that however. It's immoral and the acts of a war criminal.
Arthellion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2017, 09:12 PM   #100
Invictus
Heir
 
Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cidade Maravilhosa
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthellion View Post
Think you misunderstand me. We only beat the japanese after nuking the shit out of them. The Japanese peoples were fully prepared for a long protracted fight with us near the end of WWII. It was breaking the japanese spirit that caused them to be willing to accept defeat and begin the long process of recovery.

I don't think the mindset was better during that time. The mindsets are incredibly similar. The only way to beat the middle east is to break the spirit of the people.
I'm not advocating for that however. It's immoral and the acts of a war criminal.
... Yeah. We sure did Nuke the shit out of Germany too. And Italy. Man, Turim 1943. Never forget. Koningsberg 1945. It's not like the Japanese by the end were holding out because a few maniacs held the government hostage and by consequence the population. No sore. Even if they did, it's not like that could apply to the ME.

I mean, those islamics love getting bombed. That's why Gaza people love their situation. Or maybe just superior Europeans can recognize lost causes.
Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PM Gordon Brown asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament, sets date for general election Nukular Winter Politics 204 05-13-2010 06:14 PM
2008 U.S. Presidential & General Election BioPlague Politics 280 11-07-2008 06:41 PM
Best moments of the 2008 election? Innomine Politics 25 11-06-2008 01:03 AM
DLP Election Taure Politics 26 11-01-2008 08:44 PM
Canadian Election Vir Politics 38 09-12-2008 10:11 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2005 - 2016 DLP Group. All rights reserved.
No personal intellectual property on this site may be used without the credit and express permission of the respective authors.