Article

2004-11-09 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-11-09 11:46:22 AM|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power."

EUrophiles believe a whole lot of shit. Wouldn't want to begrudge them one more fantasy.

"But President George Bush showed what he thought of him when Zapatero phoned to congratulate him on his election victory. Mr Bush refused to come on the line."

LOL! I hadn't heard that before. No wonder Mr Bean's playing the Dr Evil.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-09 12:17:13 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:17:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 He didn't even accept his call? Wow, I have new respect for Bush.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-11-09 12:20:56 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-11-09 12:20:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Quelle suprise, the fascists hang together.

Even better, when the defense portion of that "constitution" was being written, changes were made, dropped off in the wee hours. The document was in frog and the Brit refused to sign anything until she read the translation.

All references to NATO were missing.

Posted by anonymous2u 2004-11-09 12:22:32 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:22:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Its The Sun. How much can this be trusted? (Not challenging -- just asking. Response from experts on the British news media, please.)

Posted by trailing wife 2004-11-09 12:24:55 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:24:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 "Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power."

Just as long as they believe, then it's okey-dokey.

By the way, according to the CIA World Factbook, Spain spends $9.9 billion on defense, Germany $35 billion and France $45 billion. The USA? $399 billion or 3.9% of GDP.

Looks like the Euros are going to have to give up something if they think they're going to be top dog.

Posted by Dreadnought 2004-11-09 12:38:24 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:38:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 And they're not willing to give anything up.

Posted by anonymous2u 2004-11-09 12:39:27 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:39:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Son, you may just be where we are in 20 years... but where will we be in 20 years?

Posted by BH 2004-11-09 12:39:55 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:39:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I'd love to hear Zapatero's posse explain (in detail and in practical terms) why their vision, their plan for the EU defense policy is so good. We should invite such an explanation, patiently listen, and then disassemble its weak premises in front of as much media as possible. And leave a nagging doubt in the EU's heads on how such moves would damage US Europe/relations in areas where they can't afford to be so boastful and rash.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-09 12:46:14 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 If true then the EU will have to seriously deal with their welfare state / plus thier declining populations (means they must accept/assimilate immigrants - and that is not going to happen with their superior than thou attitudes) ..they cannot afford both their socialist institutions and a military to back up these statements...the US should just cut out of europe and focus our diplomacy on the real center of gravity for the next century..pacific/indian subcontinent.

Posted by Dan 2004-11-09 12:47:00 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:47:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 OUr response? Extra Green Cards for Strivers from France Germany and Spain. These are enemy countries and nothing could do more to assure their long term defeat.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-09 12:59:55 PM|| 2004-11-09 12:59:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "I'm sorry, who were you holding for?"

The EUros will have to spend some money if they want a real defense capability. Why should the US pay for their defense any more? BTW, how much defense do you need if you're not willing to commit your troops?

Posted by Spot 2004-11-09 1:01:52 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:01:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Well, at least they'll have a good headstart. They're only 50 years behind in weapon systems. They put all the money they saved, by us footing the bill on their defense, into their "going bankrupt" social systems. I'd love to see where they get the money for that when they don't have 2 euro cents to rub toghether.
To top that off, they'll have the only alliance partner in the world that has nukes and STILL can't get any respect. Right France? lol

Posted by 98zulu 2004-11-09 1:13:01 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:13:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Actually in tanks and AFVs UK, Germany, France Italy and Poland are on par with the USA. It is in the small arms systems, tactical aricraft and the strategic recon systems that the Euros lag behind.

Posted by badanov 2004-11-09 1:16:17 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-11-09 1:16:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 dictate a common EU defence policy that would leave Britain sidelined.

If Britain wants to be outside a common EU defense policy, how is that the fault of the rest of the continent?

His comments were a huge blow to Tony Blair, who has fought to make the UK, Germany and France the key power-trio in Europe.

UK isn't involved in either the EMU, nor in Schengen. In other policies, if there are opt-outs from European integration that exist anywhere, you can be sure that UK has gotten them. Many countries have opt-outs in *some* matters, it's only UK that has opt-out in pretty much every matter.

So, how much could it ever be central, when UK wants at the same time to remain forever on the edge? Either position is an honorable one, but only a fool could think that both are possible at the same time.

Its The Sun. How much can this be trusted

I'd trust it about one quarter as much as I'd trust Baghdad Bob. And that's giving The Sun too much credit.

If you'd been able to read the Sun Article removing all the commentary, you'd have seen that what the Sun means "secret EU plot to wreck Nato and torpedo the UKâs influence in Europe" is the very thing most Rantburgers been asking of Europe -- the desire to have it increase its military capabilities and coordination so that it can take up its share of the burden.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-09 1:22:42 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:22:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Actually Aris, we just make fun of the fact that the Euros have no military capability. That doesn't mean we want them to build those capabilites given their recent history. Especially since the indication is they want to build those capabilites to challenge us...

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-11-09 1:27:05 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-11-09 1:27:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Who asked Aris back?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-11-09 1:28:32 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-11-09 1:28:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Wonder how much they've already stolen?

Posted by anonymous2u 2004-11-09 1:32:45 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:32:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Who let the dog in...

woof, woof woof, woof

Posted by Conanista 2004-11-09 1:36:17 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:36:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Was reading a Le Monde editorial last week re W's victory. Monsieur Colambani himself of Nous sommes tous Americains fame. He's frustrated and pissed off, dangerous combination.

He basically said that US doesn't have to listen to EU on anything unless US want to. To make US listen, Euros have to have a credible military. No talk on how to achieve this result, however. Typical. So, BH, your 20-year comment is most appropriate. Also didn't address willingness to use military. So, Spot, your comment is quite correct.

Can we all see why these folks were hoping so badly for JFK to be elected?

The word "contrepoids" (counterweight) cropped up consistently in many of LM's articles. I tell you what, JFK's constant whining about not being respected was sure wrong. We're not liked, but we sure as hell are respected now. W needs to make full use of his capital. Old Europe would moan, whine, and try to get its MSM cronies here to act up. In other words, W's path has been pretty well cleared of obstacles as long as he can take media heat. Just look at Jacques wanting to retreat from Ivory Coast. To be fair, French soldiers on the ground don't want to throw in the towel.

Posted by chicago mike 2004-11-09 1:36:58 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:36:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Aris-You are right that we've been griping about Europe contributing more and sharing the burden. But the language about the ultimate aim being a challenge to US power, rather than a complementary force alongside US power, is most revealing.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-09 1:43:41 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:43:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 So, are they really going to do anything to actually build an armed force of some kind, or is he just having a public hissy because he was put on terminal hold?
Methinks it's just a hissy.....

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-11-09 1:59:51 PM|| 2004-11-09 1:59:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Sounds to me like a harangue to the faithful on the lines of a Comintern meeting in the thirties. You have to know the secret codewords and who is the top dog to really know who is pissing on what leg. I truly do not believe the Europeans will be able to break away from the welfare state without an internal upheaval, more than just shuffling the cabinet positions. They are looking inwards in retreat from the world's problems unable to face what is going to happen to them when the SHTF.

Posted by Old Fogey 2004-11-09 2:23:11 PM|| 2004-11-09 2:23:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 RE: #13

Badanov,

In terms of numbers your statement is correct, but actually they're far from "on a par" with the US in tanks and AFVs in terms of quality or effectiveness. There are two main reasons for this:

1) we've greatly greatly upgraded our electronic systems since the end of the Cold War while they've largely remained stagnant. This affects both the fire control systems and the "command and control" systems of which "Blue Force Tracker" is the low level example. Not even the Brits can fully interoperate with us.

2. Our levels of training are FAR higher than theirs are and as a result our people would be MUCH more effective on a unit by unit basis.

Both of these could be addressed, of course, but they will take time and resources. I'm not certain, but I think that France, Germany, and Spain still have a draft, and that would also have to change if they're to achieve equal quality. The Brits are, of course, completely long-service professionals and extremely good up to the limits of their equipment.

The base is there, but it's got "a way to go" to achieve equality.

Other major shortfalls on their part are strategic "lift" either air or sea based, and tactical recon systems such as UAVs. (We weren't first into the UAV business by any means, but we're into them big time now, and have really integrated them into our operations.) The lack of any recent combat experience is also an issue. (The Italians have been working with us, as have
the Brits, but France & Germany are way out of touch.)

Of course, all of these can be addressed, but it will take RESOURCES and as others have pointed out, it's highly questionable if they'll make that committment in time to meet Zaptero's 20 year timeline.

Posted by Ralph Tacoma 2004-11-09 2:41:47 PM|| 2004-11-09 2:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 They can be on par with the US material wise - but they have demonstrated a lack judgement and purpose. The populations will required to deploy massively and resolutly is also lacking.
Besides in 20 years the transformation to Eurostan will be well on its way, so the whole mess (except the UK) will be turning into a bigger shithole than it is now.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-11-09 2:56:04 PM|| 2004-11-09 2:56:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 This is ludicrous. What good are tanks without any airlift capabilities or aircraft carriers? Germany needed to borrow a Tupolev from Uzbekhistan to get its gear over to Afghanistan.

The Euros are at least 20, probably 25+ years behind us, and the gap's widening each year. Their pension and health care systems are already approaching bankruptcy (the French health care system is already broke), and their economic growth is in the 1% range. There is simply no realistic scenario under which the Europeans can challenge us militarily AND avoid destroying the institution that in their minds sets them apart from us, the welfare state. In other words, the only way for the Euros to challenge the American hypercapitalist monster is to become hypercapitalist themselves. Ain't gonna happen.

Long past time we quit wasting so much bandwidth and diplomatic resources on these can't help us, can't hurt us jokers and shifted much more of our attention to the theaters that really matter in this century: the subcontinent and the far east. India is more important to our security and prosperity than France. Shift 500 or more State Dept professionals from Paris to New Delhi, asap. Asian Century now. Look eastward, 'mericans.

Posted by lex 2004-11-09 3:03:56 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:03:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I think that they'll hire one of Potemkin's proteges to handle their next military build up.

I've heard that rows and rows of inflatible tanks
and paper mache aircraft appear to be very formidable in pictures.

Posted by Brutus 2004-11-09 3:22:00 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:22:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Jules> language about the ultimate aim being a challenge to US power, rather than a complementary force alongside US power, is most revealing.

That was the language of *The Sun* ofcourse, not of any European politician, certainly not of Aznar. So if it reveals anything, that's Sun's ridiculous bias.

If there's a sentence inside quotes, then you can probably trust it to be accurate. But when they don't use quotes, that's Sun's *interpretation* of what was 'really meant' -- meaning pure Sun propaganda.

In this case the quote "Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power." was interpreted by Sun as "Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero brazenly declared the ultimate aim was to challenge America"

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-09 3:35:57 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:35:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 How, precisely, could Europe hope to be "the MOST IMPORTANT world power" without challenging America?

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-09 3:59:01 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:59:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Shhh, AzCat. Aris is in the other world right now. It would be dangerous to disturb him.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-09 4:17:05 PM|| 2004-11-09 4:17:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Aris, thanks for the perspective on the Sun's trustworthyness.

AzCat, et al, do have a good point, though: Europe can only become the most important world power either by surpassing the U.S. in military manpower, materiel and training -- a very expensive proposition for a society struggling with current social obligations -- or by undermining U.S. efforts. Not a very comfortable choice. Not one I am happy to see Europe's putative leadership putting in the balance.

However, until they reach that point, any effort to improve their military capabilities is all to the good, I think. By improving their military capabilities, they give themselves options besides talk-talk to resolve issues such as Iran's nukes, or the Yugoslavian quagmire. Even the contemplation of such options can loosen the mental strictures Western Europe has assiduously developed post-WWII. Perhaps in time they will come to see that there is an intermediate stage between craven peace and world war.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-11-09 4:19:40 PM|| 2004-11-09 4:19:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 They left out a word.

most important Muslim world power

Posted by someone 2004-11-09 4:35:12 PM|| 2004-11-09 4:35:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Aris, thanks for the perspective on the Sun's trustworthyness

What does Aris know about the Sun's trustworthiness? Can he give examples of actual substantial factual inaccuracies in their reporting? Outright lies? Obviously it's a paper with a distinct bias, but just because that bias isn't to Aris's taste, he comes out with ridiculous crap like I'd trust it about one quarter as much as I'd trust Baghdad Bob. And that's giving The Sun too much credit; a bit of tabloid interjection in its reportage makes the whole topic dismissable as pure Sun propaganda. He was saying the same sort of ill-informed crap about the Telegraph a year or so ago. He's quitened down about that. If Aris actually bought UK papers, he'd be an Independent or Guardian reader. Am I not right, Mr Katsaris? If he had to chose a tabloid, it'd be the Mirror rather than the Sun. It wasn't the Sun which excitedly published hoax photos suggesting that British troops were engaged in abuse of prisoners in Iraq, and then subsequently had to humiliatingly sack its outspoken left-wing editor, was it? I'd say Aris's opinions about British newspapers are about as useful as Baghdad Bob's observations on the Greek press.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-09 4:37:30 PM|| 2004-11-09 4:37:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Aris, this counterweight talk isn't something new, especially after 9/11- if you know what to read. I even think our "good friend" Dom might have mentioned it at the UN. Or our "historical ally" Jacques.

--To make US listen, Euros have to have a credible military. No talk on how to achieve this result, however. --

Heck, I'd just take credible. At least their weight in humanitarian aid.

But that recent survey said it all, yes, we want to be a counterweight - 70ish %.

Upping military budget - falls to about 50%.

However, throw some of the Russian tech into the mix, was it ever determined what went thru that tank and bounced around and how are we going to counteract it?

Plus, wasn't there just an article that the Chicoms and Paks' military jets are equivalent to our F-16s??? Due to our tech transfer, thank you Bubba!

Posted by anonymous2u 2004-11-09 5:30:10 PM|| 2004-11-09 5:30:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 I don't know, BD. I think Aris is the type who' wrap a Mirror cover about the Sun while he studied page 3.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-09 5:39:00 PM|| 2004-11-09 5:39:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Aris, thanks for the perspective on the Sun's trustworthyness.

Um, The Sun is a British paper. Aris has a rather large bug up his ass when it comes to the Brits; his assessment is hardly trustworthy on this issue.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-11-09 5:46:19 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-11-09 5:46:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I read this some place but can't remember where and I can't vouch for it's truth but Germans and French haven't created a "new" non government job in 10 years. The UK has. Lots of teh noise that France et all make it to distract their population from this fact. The anti-US tone of the media and "elites" is also a result of this poor economic condition.

The EU nations would love to have the military might to counter weight the US, they in no way can afford it however and would find very little public support for it. This may get me flamed but would the EU taking some responsibility for security in the world be a bad thing if they could afford it even if we didn't agree with them?

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-11-09 5:54:36 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-11-09 5:54:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Robert Crawford> "Um, The Sun is a British paper."
The Sun is a British *tabloid*, which is more to the point. Eveb more significantly The Sun is The Sun and I have judged it from past articles.

Bulldog> What does Aris know about the Sun's trustworthiness? Can he give examples of actual substantial factual inaccuracies in their reporting?

Sure, in the above article for example: "He vowed his country would stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow Iraq war weasels France and Germany â to dictate a common EU defence policy that would leave Britain sidelined."

I'm pretty sure that Aznar never state his country's purpose was "to dictate a common EU defence policy that would leave Britain sidelined". So, here's factual inaccuracy number one -- Sun claims he vowed something which I very much doubt he did.

Ofcourse since they don't use quotes, they are safe from being sued, hmm? I never said they're not nice users and abusers of language.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004513122,00.html
"SLIPPERY Jacques Chirac attacked Tony Blair yesterday â and vowed to use the new EU Constitution to create a huge transatlantic rift with America. "

More factual inaccuracies:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004501116,00.html
Under EU rules, rejection of one candidate means defeat for all 25 members of the new Commission â including openly-gay former Labour MP Peter Mandelson.

Nope, that's not what it means.

How, precisely, could Europe hope to be "the MOST IMPORTANT world power" without challenging America?

Language isn't for naught, AzCat, definitely not in the game of politics. There's a very specific difference between saying "I want to overthrow you" and saying "I want to be the best." The former is sheer obnoxious hostility, the latter is an issue of self-improvement.

The former is a call for hatred towards America, the latter is the natural desire for greatness that everyone aspires to. If you object to other nations or continents wanting to be The Best, that's your own problem and your own hostility.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-09 6:07:57 PM|| 2004-11-09 6:07:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 For them to be the best would require either them putting in substantially more effort than we have, or us having some kind of problem.

Based on their past level of commitment, it does rather point to the latter.

Posted by Dishman 2004-11-09 6:48:22 PM|| 2004-11-09 6:48:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 YAWN ...

Nothing to see here .

Ohh wait is that a Turkey gobbling again ?

Still roleplaying in yer fantasy world , Aris ?

Posted by MacNails 2004-11-09 7:18:26 PM|| 2004-11-09 7:18:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Having a goal to work toward is necessary to achieve excellence. A worthy challenger just makes one work harder. We've been written off before and have come back better than ever. Bring it on!

Posted by Ptah 2004-11-09 7:22:47 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-11-09 7:22:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 (Ref #37)
Aris,
Why do you keep refering to Aznar when the article refers to Zapatero?

Posted by Chuck 2004-11-09 7:26:12 PM|| 2004-11-09 7:26:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Chuck, you took the words right out of my mouth... Aris... you do know that Aznar lost the Spanish election in what is widely regarded as a pathetic display of Spainish appeasment right? Zapatero not Aznar won.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-11-09 8:03:55 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-11-09 8:03:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Btw, you're wrong Aris. Saying you want to be great or you want to improve is a desire to achieve greatness. Saying you want to be "the best" is a challenge to the current best.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-11-09 8:05:42 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-11-09 8:05:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Saying you want to be "the best" is a challenge to the current best.

Particularly when your political culture is infused with a searing hatred of the current best.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-11-09 8:17:20 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-11-09 8:17:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 He declared: "Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power. We want to arrange the European future at the side of France and Germany. Spain sees itself with France and Germany as never before."

So speaketh the permanent junior-member and flunky of the French Club.

Posted by Pappy 2004-11-09 8:29:46 PM|| 2004-11-09 8:29:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 but... but.. in what the Portuguese village of Torres Vedras is related to this issue?...

Posted by anon2 2004-11-09 8:58:38 PM|| 2004-11-09 8:58:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#47

A SECRET EU plot to wreck Nato

Don't keep it a secret - bring it right out in the open, guys.

NATO has outlived its usefulness. Go ahead and disband it; we'll set up agreements and alliances with those countries with whom we have common interests, and Frogistan et al. can run their mouths and pretend they're important.

It would save us money, too. Sounds like a win for us (AND Britain). Wonder who the losers would be? :-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-11-09 10:30:41 PM|| 2004-11-09 10:30:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 The only way the EU could be an important world power in 20 years would be if meteorites destroyed the US, China, India, Brazil, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. The Euros can't even get it together to make enough children to maintain their population, how do they think that they can become a world power with a shrinking, aging population. Wars are fought by young men. In 20 years, most of the young men in Europe will be from Asia. Best bet for Zapetero is to start a website like the Democratic Underground where like minded Euros can spin dreams of glory unhampered by reality.

Posted by RWV 2004-11-09 10:37:20 PM|| 2004-11-09 10:37:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Chuck> Sorry, too many Iberian politicians to keep track of. Solana, Borrell, Barosso, Aznar, Zapatero... Guy's bound to get confused eventually ;-)

Btw, you're wrong Aris. Saying you want to be great or you want to improve is a desire to achieve greatness. Saying you want to be "the best" is a challenge to the current best.

Even with your argument, still hardly a "brazen declaration" of the same. If that's a brazen declaration, then what would be a subtle or modest declaration?

Remember that the newspiece was about the "sensational" laying-bare of the formerly-secret Plot to Kill NATO, as well as the "brazen declaration" of Zapatero's challenge to the USA. It's not enough to accuse continental Europeans of doing something, we also have to be presented in such a manner as to seem even more arrogant and shameless and belligerent about it than we already are.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-09 11:40:40 PM|| 2004-11-09 11:40:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 As a sidenote, just to make clear the difference, here's an analogy:

Imagine if an American president said: "I want USA to remain the most important nation on the planet."

Imagine this then being interpreted (The Sun-style) as: "American president brazenly declares he wants to keep all other nations down."

Would you call that an accurate interpretation?Would you say that it amounts to the same thing? Language used *does* matter.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-09 11:52:13 PM|| 2004-11-09 11:52:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 This is not news. The whole concept of the EU is to challenge American hegemony. It won't work though.

Posted by Ol_Dirty_American 2004-11-10 12:00:46 AM|| 2004-11-10 12:00:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#52 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BH 2004-11-09 3:37:50 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:37:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BH 2004-11-09 3:37:50 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:37:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BH 2004-11-09 3:39:10 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:39:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BH 2004-11-09 3:39:10 PM|| 2004-11-09 3:39:10 PM|| Front Page Top

15:39 BH
15:39 BH
15:37 BH
15:37 BH
14:51 Old Grouch
14:51 Old Grouch
14:46 Old Grouch
14:46 Old Grouch
00:04 Bomb-a-rama
00:00 Ol_Dirty_American
00:00 SOG475
00:00 Phil Fraering
23:58 Ol_Dirty_American
23:57 SteveS
23:56 SOG475
23:55 Bomb-a-rama
23:54 Mike Sylwester
23:52 Aris Katsaris
23:50 SOG475
23:49 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:40 Aris Katsaris
23:40 OldSpook
23:38 Zenster
23:37 OldSpook