The Real Ronald Reagan, the real United States.

Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:25 pm
The pattern is pretty much all here. Be warned, it ain't pretty.

Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:29 pm
web sites that look like that always make me suspect the people who control them wear tinfoil hats

besides, ya gotta love reagan, he showed those air traffic controllers, malingerers each and every one of them
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:32 pm

[use Ctrl F to find this section]



The World Court

And we took the United States, Reagan's United States, his government to court, the World Court.
I was Foreign Minister at that time here in Nicaragua.
I was responsible for that.
And the United States government received the harshest sentence, the harshest condemnation ever in the history of world justice.
In spite of the fact that the United States since the early 1920's has been proclaiming to the world that one of the proofs of its moral superiority as compared to other countries around the world is the fact that it abides by the international law and was obedient to the world court.
The United States was brought to the world court by Nicaragua and received the condemnation that the United States failed to heed the sentence.
They still owe Nicaragua by now must be between $20,000 [million] and $30,000 million. [$20-30 Billion]
At the time when we left government that the damages caused by that Reagan war was over $17 billion.
And this according to very moderate estimators of damage:
People from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, people from Harvard University and from Oxford and from the University of Paris.
This is the team that was pulled together to estimate the damage.
The United States was ordered to pay for the damage.
Bush [Bush Senior] never even wanted to talk to me about it.
I said, "Well, let's have a meeting so that you comply with your sentence of the court."
He said to me in two different letters that there was nothing to talk about.
So, Reagan did damage to Nicaragua beyond the imaginations of the people who are hearing me now.
The ripple effects of that; criminal murderous interventions in my country will go on for what, 50 years or more.

0 Replies
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:36 pm
That's a pretty stupid comment, djjd. Do you think it funny when people are tortured and murdered?

Try reading the material.
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:38 pm
already said i don't trust sites that look like that

and that's my honest opinion of reagan, only thing he did that i liked
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 08:49 pm
Perhaps you might trust this reporter.

El Salvador
Reagan Was Behind "One Of The Most Intensive Campaigns Of Mass Murder In Recent History"

Journalist and activist Allen Nairn who has won a number of awards for his reporting in Central America, from El Salvador to Guatemala, discusses Reagan’s foreign policy couched as a war against communism.

AMY GOODMAN: [democracynow.org] As we turn now to Allan Nairn, journalist and activist, won a number of awards for his reporting in Central America from El Salvador to Guatemala, wrote for the "New Republic," "The Nation," "The Progressive." Allan, we are now hearing in the United States a great deal about Reagan foreign policy couched as a war against communism. Can you respond to that and talk specifically about Guatemala and El Salvador?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, communism was the excuse for what Reagan did in Central America, but the victims were not Communists.

The victims were priests and peasants and labor leaders and residents and student leaders and academics and journalists and others who especially in the late 1970's both in Guatemala and Salvador had coalesced into strong popular movements.

The thing they were responding to was the fact that in both those countries, hundreds of thousands of people every year were dying unnecessarily from malnutrition, from diarrhea, from malaria; people were living on hillsides trying to eke out a living on corn crops that could only feed a family for three or four months because the plot was so small because the larger owners had all the good land.

People tried to find a peaceful solution to this preventable death mainly of children.

In many villages in Guatemala and El Salvador half of the kids would die through peaceful means.

Through strikes on the plantations where they would ask for an extra 40 cents a day in wages, strikes in places like the Coca-Cola plant in Guatemala, calls for enforcement of the real minimum wage.

The response to this by the militaries of El Salvador and Guatemala in both cases backed by the Reagan administration, the response was death squads.

In Guatemala they had names like the Malablanca, the White Hand, the S.R., the Secret Anti-Communist army.

They would often pass out leaflets listing the names of the people they intended to execute.

Sometimes they were illustrated with the photos.

They complied.

They would follow up.

They would roam the streets and in vans would come into houses in the middle of night wearing hoods.

They would drag people away, and in the next few days their mutilated bodies would turn up by the roadside often with the genitals removed, stuffed in the mouth, hands severed.

This was effective.

It worked.

The popular movements in both Salvador and Guatemala were crushed.

And in response, many of the survivors went to the hills.

They joined up with the very small, until that time, guerrilla groups, several of which had a Communist ideology and were backed by Cuba, and they tried to fight that way.

When they did that, that was seen by Reagan and his people, Alexander Hague, the Secretary of State, Jean Kirkpatrick, Elliot Abrams, the Human Rights and Latin American chief, John Negroponte, the ambassador to Honduras, this was seen as a strategic success because it made it that much easier politically for the U.S. to justify what it was doing.

They can say, see, we're fighting Communists. We're fighting an armed insurgency. That's why we're backing these governments.

What they backed was really one of the most intensive campaigns of mass murder in recent history.

In Guatemala during Reagan's time, about 200,000 civilians were massacred.

A couple of thousand of armed guerrillas were killed in combat.

0 Replies
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 09:02 pm
Even Reagan's conservative ambassador to Guatemala took notice.

Two days before the State Department report was issued, Ambassador Frederic Chapin sent a cable to Washington decrying the "horrible human rights realities in Guatamala."

Chapin wrote that "we must come to some resolution in policy terms. Either we can overlook the record and emphasize the strategic concept or we can pursue a higher moral path. We simply cannot flip flop back and forth between the two possible positions."

In 1990, George Bush [George Bush Senior] again cut military aid after a U.S. citizen was murdered by Guatemalan soldiers, though covert aid by the CIA continued.

Only after the war ended did the United States acknowlege the damage it had done.

In March, President Clinton surprised his hosts and the audiance[sic] at Guatermala's National Palace of Culture by publicly expressing regret for four decades of U.S. support for "military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression."
0 Replies
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 09:20 pm
Speaking of Ronald Reagan...

There's a move underfoot to rename Mt. Diablo in Contra Costa County, CA to Mt. Reagan because one man living within view of the mountain has a thing about the devil.

Man's view on Mount Diablo: Rename it for the Gipper

One man's campaign to rename Mt. Diablo

I wonder if he will also request the renaming of the whole Diablo Valley, the Mt. Diablo Unified School District and all the many places and agencies that use Diablo in their names.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 09:31 pm
It only gets worse, much much worse.


The Book of Slaughter and Forgetting
Intentional Ignorance from Reagan to Us


"...I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true " but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."

"Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987

There is a germ of truth in the malign fatuity Ronald Reagan (chief magistrate of the United States, 1981-1989) offered to explain the great crisis of his presidency, which should have resulted in his impeachment. (It was probably written for him by Peggy Noonan, who developed a nice line in maudlin propaganda.) In the gap between what one knows to be the case and what one chooses to believe, a multitude of sins and crimes can be covered over. Although memory is an essential part of the actor's armory, Reagan had developed his ability to forget into an art, even before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. What he remembered was what he (or rather his handlers) chose to remember, whether factual or not.

In 1985 and 1986 the Reagan administration secretly sold more than a hundred tons of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles to the government of Iran in order to provide money for the Contras, a mercenary army attacking the government and people of Nicaragua, support for which Congress eventually banned.

The US military advised its Contra hirelings to attack "soft targets," with horrific results. An eyewitness to a Contra raid in Jinotega province said,

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

These acts were repeated throughout Nicaragua (one of the instigators being the present US ambassador to Iraq), by people whom Reagan compared to the Founding Fathers.

But when the Tower Commission began looking into the selling of arms to Iran, Reagan was asked about his conflicting testimony on those sales. He referred to the notes that his handlers provided and read out in a clear voice, "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised"!

[This was your president, a man I've heard many on this site eulogize] Read on, if you dare.


OccomBill might say, "Good thing that Rosa wasn't raped. I'd be all over these vermin in a flash."

Georgeob1 would likely intone, "Rosa was probably a commie or at least a commie sympathizer. Beside other people have done similar things. There are numerous sources that are easily available that will prove all this to be a lie. "
0 Replies
Merry Andrew
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 09:40 pm
Like dj, I'm always automatically suspicious of sites like that. Wonder who actually runs it? Gotta be an agenda; it's not pure holy outrage.

This is not to say anything positive about R. Reagan, you understand. Just that site.
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 09:52 pm
I don't claim to know the validity of the website. I can not say if Reagan was at fault either. But in something quite of this size and scheme makes me slow to blame just one person. He might have had something to do with it, but he wasn't the only one, and thus not the only one worthy of the hate and anger.
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:04 am
@Merry Andrew,
Instead of wondering about who has collected these sources, why not try and read it, Merry. Too uncomfortable?

The site is a collection of many well respected authors. Even if the numbers are off by a bit, Bill Clinton didn't fess up to genocidal actions on the part of the US government and military for the fun of it.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:36 am
I can not say if Reagan was at fault either. But in something quite of this size and scheme makes me slow to blame just one person. He might have had something to do with it, but he wasn't the only one,

Clearly Reagan is not the only one who should have been held accountable, Seed, but he carries the same degree of responsibility as those that were hung at Nuremberg and in Japan, for acts that are equal in kind if not in degree.

Leaders have a degree of responsibility that they simply can't shirk with an "I didn't know". Read the next post. These types of actions are not at all new.

0 Replies
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:36 am
Sorry for the length.

"The Center for American Progress has just launched an advertising campaign called "Torture is not US." The hard truth is that for at least five decades it has been. But it doesn't have to be."


'Never Before!' Our Amnesiac Torture Debate


It was the "Mission Accomplished" of George W. Bush's second term, and an announcement of that magnitude called for a suitably dramatic location. But what was the right backdrop for the infamous "We do not torture" declaration? With characteristic audacity, the Bush team settled on downtown Panama City.

It was certainly bold. An hour and a half's drive from where Bush stood, the US military ran the notorious School of the Americas from 1946 to 1984, a sinister educational institution that, if it had a motto, might have been "We do torture." It is here in Panama and, later, at the school's new location in Fort Benning, Georgia, where the roots of the current torture scandals can be found.

According to declassified training manuals, SOA students--military and police officers from across the hemisphere--were instructed in many of the same "coercive interrogation" techniques that have since migrated to Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib: early morning capture to maximize shock, immediate hooding and blindfolding, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep and food "manipulation," humiliation, extreme temperatures, isolation, stress positions--and worse.

In 1996 President Clinton's Intelligence Oversight Board admitted that US-produced training materials condoned "execution of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion and false imprisonment."

Some of the Panama school's graduates returned to their countries to commit the continent's greatest war crimes of the past half-century: the murders of Archbishop Oscar Romero and six Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the systematic theft of babies from Argentina's "disappeared" prisoners, the massacre of 900 civilians in El Mozote in El Salvador and military coups too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that choosing Panama to declare "We do not torture" is a little like dropping by a slaughterhouse to pronounce the United States a nation of vegetarians.

And yet when covering the Bush announcement, not a single mainstream news outlet mentioned the sordid history of its location. How could they? To do so would require something totally absent from the current debate: an admission that the embrace of torture by US officials long predates the Bush Administration and has in fact been integral to US foreign policy since the Vietnam War.

It's a history that has been exhaustively documented in an avalanche of books, declassified documents, CIA training manuals, court records and truth commissions. In his upcoming book A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy synthesizes this unwieldy cache of evidence, producing an indispensable and riveting account of how monstrous CIA-funded experiments on psychiatric patients and prisoners in the 1950s turned into a template for what he calls "no-touch torture," based on sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain. McCoy traces how these methods were field-tested by CIA agents in Vietnam as part of the Phoenix program and then imported to Latin America and Asia under the guise of police training programs.

It's not only apologists for torture who ignore this history when they blame abuses on "a few bad apples"--so too do many of torture's most prominent opponents. Apparently forgetting everything they once knew about US cold war misadventures, a startling number have begun to subscribe to an antihistorical narrative in which the idea of torturing prisoners first occurred to US officials on September 11, 2001, at which point the interrogation methods used in Guantánamo apparently emerged, fully formed, from the sadistic recesses of Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's brains. Up until that moment, we are told, America fought its enemies while keeping its humanity intact.

The principal propagator of this narrative (what Garry Wills termed "original sinlessness") is Senator John McCain. Writing recently in Newsweek on the need for a ban on torture, McCain says that when he was a prisoner of war in Hanoi, he held fast to the knowledge "that we were different from our enemies...that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or approving such mistreatment of them." It is a stunning historical distortion.

By the time McCain was taken captive, the CIA had already launched the Phoenix program and, as McCoy writes, "its agents were operating forty interrogation centers in South Vietnam that killed more than twenty thousand suspects and tortured thousands more," a claim he backs up with pages of quotes from press reports as well as Congressional and Senate probes.

Does it somehow lessen the horrors of today to admit that this is not the first time the US government has used torture to wipe out its political opponents--that it has operated secret prisons before, that it has actively supported regimes that tried to erase the left by dropping students out of airplanes? That, at home, photographs of lynchings were traded and sold as trophies and warnings? Many seem to think so. On November 8 Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott made the astonishing claim to the House of Representatives that "America has never had a question about its moral integrity, until now."

Molly Ivins, expressing her shock that the United States is running a prison gulag, wrote that "it's just this one administration...and even at that, it seems to be mostly Vice President Dick Cheney." And in the November issue of Harper's, William Pfaff argues that what truly sets the Bush Administration apart from its predecessors is "its installation of torture as integral to American military and clandestine operations." Pfaff acknowledges that long before Abu Ghraib, there were those who claimed that the School of the Americas was a "torture school," but he says that he was "inclined to doubt that it was really so." Perhaps it's time for Pfaff to have a look at the SOA textbooks coaching illegal torture techniques, all readily available in both Spanish and English, as well as the hair-raising list of SOA grads.

Other cultures deal with a legacy of torture by declaring "Never again!" Why do so many Americans insist on dealing with the current torture crisis by crying "Never Before"? I suspect it has to do with a sincere desire to convey the seriousness of this Administration's crimes. And the Bush Administration's open embrace of torture is indeed unprecedented--but let's be clear about what is unprecedented about it: not the torture but the openness. Past administrations tactfully kept their "black ops" secret; the crimes were sanctioned but they were practiced in the shadows, officially denied and condemned. The Bush Administration has broken this deal: Post-9/11, it demanded the right to torture without shame, legitimized by new definitions and new laws.

Despite all the talk of outsourced torture, the Bush Administration's real innovation has been its in-sourcing, with prisoners being abused by US citizens in US-run prisons and transported to third countries in US planes. It is this departure from clandestine etiquette, more than the actual crimes, that has so much of the military and intelligence community up in arms: By daring to torture unapologetically and out in the open, Bush has robbed everyone of plausible deniability.

For those nervously wondering if it is time to start using alarmist words like totalitarianism, this shift is of huge significance. When torture is covertly practiced but officially and legally repudiated, there is still the hope that if atrocities are exposed, justice could prevail. When torture is pseudo-legal and when those responsible merely deny that it is torture, what dies is what Hannah Arendt called "the juridical person in man"; soon enough, victims no longer bother to search for justice, so sure are they of the futility (and danger) of that quest. This impunity is a mass version of what happens inside the torture chamber, when prisoners are told they can scream all they want because no one can hear them and no one is going to save them.

In Latin America the revelations of US torture in Iraq have not been met with shock and disbelief but with powerful déjà vu and reawakened fears. Hector Mondragon, a Colombian activist who was tortured in the 1970s by an officer trained at the School of the Americas, wrote: "It was hard to see the photos of the torture in Iraq because I too was tortured. I saw myself naked with my feet fastened together and my hands tied behind my back. I saw my own head covered with a cloth bag. I remembered my feelings--the humiliation, pain." Dianna Ortiz, an American nun who was brutally tortured in a Guatemalan jail, said, "I could not even stand to look at those photographs...so many of the things in the photographs had also been done to me. I was tortured with a frightening dog and also rats. And they were always filming."

Ortiz has testified that the men who raped her and burned her with cigarettes more than 100 times deferred to a man who spoke Spanish with an American accent whom they called "Boss." It is one of many stories told by prisoners in Latin America of mysterious English-speaking men walking in and out of their torture cells, proposing questions, offering tips. Several of these cases are documented in Jennifer Harbury's powerful new book, Truth, Torture, and the American Way.

Some of the countries that were mauled by US-sponsored torture regimes have tried to repair their social fabric through truth commissions and war crimes trials. In most cases, justice has been elusive, but past abuses have been entered into the official record and entire societies have asked themselves questions not only about individual responsibility but collective complicity. The United States, though an active participant in these "dirty wars," has gone through no parallel process of national soul-searching.

The result is that the memory of US complicity in far-away crimes remains fragile, living on in old newspaper articles, out-of-print books and tenacious grassroots initiatives like the annual protests outside the School of the Americas (which has been renamed but remains largely unchanged). The terrible irony of the anti-historicism of the current torture debate is that in the name of eradicating future abuses, these past crimes are being erased from the record.

Every time Americans repeat the fairy tale about their pre-Cheney innocence, these already hazy memories fade even further. The hard evidence still exists, of course, carefully archived in the tens of thousands of declassified documents available from the National Security Archive. But inside US collective memory, the disappeared are being disappeared all over again.
This casual amnesia does a profound disservice not only to the victims of these crimes but also to the cause of trying to remove torture from the US policy arsenal once and for all. Already there are signs that the Administration will deal with the current torture uproar by returning to the cold war model of plausible deniability.

The McCain amendment protects every "individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government"; it says nothing about torture training or buying information from the exploding industry of for-profit interrogators. And in Iraq the dirty work is already being handed over to Iraqi death squads, trained by US commanders like Jim Steele, who prepared for the job by setting up similarly lawless units in El Salvador.

The US role in training and supervising Iraq's Interior Ministry was forgotten, moreover, when 173 prisoners were recently discovered in a Ministry dungeon, some tortured so badly that their skin was falling off. "Look, it's a sovereign country. The Iraqi government exists," Rumsfeld said. He sounded just like the CIA's William Colby, who when asked in a 1971 Congressional probe about the thousands killed under Phoenix--a program he helped launch--replied that it was now "entirely a South Vietnamese program."

And that's the problem with pretending that the Bush Administration invented torture. "If you don't understand the history and the depths of the institutional and public complicity," says McCoy, "then you can't begin to undertake meaningful reforms." Lawmakers will respond to pressure by eliminating one small piece of the torture apparatus--closing a prison, shutting down a program, even demanding the resignation of a really bad apple like Rumsfeld. But, McCoy says, "they will preserve the prerogative to torture."

The Center for American Progress has just launched an advertising campaign called "Torture is not US." The hard truth is that for at least five decades it has been. But it doesn't have to be.

0 Replies
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:35 pm
American troops worked hard to earn their nickname, baby killers, and it's not something that they are likely to want to relinquish easily.

OccomBill, "Women were gang raped". Odd that I've never heard you once mention this and demand that these "demented pieces of ****" be brought to justice. You know, it's still not too late. What in the name of god could possibly be holding a man of your high moral character back, a man who runs around pointing fingers at others who you deem are just not up to your level of morality?

Only one of these sadistic war criminals, William Calley was convicted and he served three years of a life sentence, house arrest. Then he was pardoned. Excellent example of justice, don't you think, Gob1, OccomBill, ...


My Lai Massacre


After the first civilians were wounded or killed by the indiscriminate fire, the soldiers soon began attacking anything that moved, humans and animals alike, with firearms, grenades and bayonets. The scale of the massacre only spiraled as it progressed, the brutality increasing with each killing. BBC News described the scene:

Soldiers went berserk, gunning down unarmed men, women, children and babies. Families which huddled together for safety in huts or bunkers were shown no mercy. Those who emerged with hands held high were murdered. ... Elsewhere in the village, other atrocities were in progress. Women were gang raped; Vietnamese who had bowed to greet the Americans were beaten with fists and tortured, clubbed with rifle butts and stabbed with bayonets. Some victims were mutilated with the signature "C Company" carved into the chest. By late morning word had got back to higher authorities and a cease-fire was ordered. My Lai was in a state of carnage. Bodies were strewn through the village.

"BBC News , [2]
Dozens of people were herded into an irrigation ditch and other locations and killed with automatic weapons.[18] A large group of about 70 to 80 villagers, rounded up by the 1st Platoon in the center of the village, were killed personally by Calley and by soldiers ordered to fire by Calley. Calley also shot two other large groups of civilians with a weapon taken from a soldier who had refused to do any further killing.

Members of the 2nd Platoon killed at least 60"70 Vietnamese people, as they swept through the northern half of My Lai 4 and through Binh Tay, a small subhamlet about 400 meters north of My Lai 4.[3]

After the initial "sweeps" by the 1st and the 2nd Platoons, the 3rd Platoon was dispatched to deal with any "remaining resistance". They immediately began killing every still-living human and animal they could find, including shooting the Vietnamese who emerged from their hiding places, and finishing off the wounded found moaning in the heaps of bodies. The 3rd Platoon also rounded up and killed a group of seven to twelve women and children.[3]



Colin Powell, then a 31-year-old Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American[25] soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of My Lai.[26] In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN's Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."[27]
0 Replies
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:12 pm
In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN's Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."

That's brilliant, Colin, they are to be deplored. Many to most of the men who participated in this event to be deplored are walking around free, enjoying life [how could they be, but that's another issue].

Maybe, Colin, just maybe, a sense of morality would demand that one who takes great pains to posture morality, might actually take some concrete action against such things instead of simply dismissing mass murder as a mere blip once every 10 years or so.
Merry Andrew
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:30 pm
I just love it when people with no military experience or understanding, let alone any knowledge or understanding of the combat experience, take the moral high ground and start lecturing those who, like Powell, not only understand the problem but probably have frequent nightmares. It's known, I think, as the fine art of finger-pointing.
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:43 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Odd, isn't it, Merry, how those "frequent nightmares" don't translate into action.

Did you come up with these georgeob1 diversions all by your lonesome?

Merry, 504 innocent men, women and children were brutally murdered and you're troubled that, possibly the perpetrators and defenders of that heinous war crime are having nightmares.

Is this the real United States, Merry?

0 Replies
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:49 pm
the american influence in south america was a travesty, no doubt about it, iran-contra, support for death squads

ronnie and america thought they were fighting communism, it's not a new story

love saddam when he fights iran (hell turn a blind eye when he gasses a few khurds)

Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 02:02 pm
the american influence in south america was a travesty

'influence', 'travesty'

An interesting choice of words, djjd, for heinous acts of murder, rape, torture and ...

Are you concerned that someone might give you a minus 1?

Related Topics

WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
  1. Forums
  2. » The Real Ronald Reagan, the real United States.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 03:34:10