Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: Drugs: The Legalization Debate

  1. #1
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default Drugs: The Legalization Debate

    The Nov 13 2008 issue of Rolling Stone magazine has an interesting article about this subject by a reporter who tried to interview one of the major narcos and didn't get killed for the attempt.

    The author points out that our drug policy can be described as asking other countries not to sell us something we very much want; which results in a lot of Mexicans getting killed.

    He further states that the we should be talking about the one thing that can really put a stop to all this: legalization. I agree with him.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 11-26-2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason: Added link.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  2. #2
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Most correctional officers would agree with that as well.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  3. #3
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Prohibition has rarely worked unless the item could be tied to imminent danger and even then excused. Blowfish anybody? There is a huge body of literature that looks at the use of behavior/puritan law systems as a means of controlling subject populations. The fact that prohibition is enacted is more important than the items that are prohibited. (e.g) highly punitive drunk driving laws, restricting the driving age, creating a population of convicts has done nothing to stop drunk driving deaths in America. The numbers fluctuate more based on the economy than enactment of punitive laws.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  4. #4
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Since mere possession and use is such a minor offense, in most places, as to be no offense at all; we have in effect legitimatized the market for drugs. So our drug policy states the market is legitimate but serving that market is not. Which is a little screwy. It can't work. And that leads to foreign cops and soldiers dying in large numbers trying to stop their countrymen from selling us something we really really want. Which is not only screwy but dishonorable.

    A small point but one of the reasons for drug prohibition is to make sure the potential economic contribution of users isn't lost. From observation I believe most of those people will never contribute in any event so we are trying to preserve something that isn't there in the first place.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  5. #5
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Since mere possession and use is such a minor offense, in most places, as to be no offense at all; we have in effect legitimatized the market for drugs. So our drug policy states the market is legitimate but serving that market is not. Which is a little screwy. It can't work. And that leads to foreign cops and soldiers dying in large numbers trying to stop their countrymen from selling us something we really really want. Which is not only screwy but dishonorable.

    A small point but one of the reasons for drug prohibition is to make sure the potential economic contribution of users isn't lost. From observation I believe most of those people will never contribute in any event so we are trying to preserve something that isn't there in the first place.
    Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Prisons are filled with individuals who’s crime is “simple possession”. In fact, due to the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses, when overcrowding occurs, it is thieves, burglars, and assault convicted criminals that will be released first. Simply being associated with a dealer or even a user is now a felony in most states. The point about the contribution of the individuals is erroneous as well and plays on the stereotype of the typical drug user being nearly homeless and stealing car stereos to feed there addiction. The actual majority of drug abusers maintain fairly steady work and manage to meet there basic needs. Many of the individuals that fall into the stereotype were already at an economic disadvantage or have MH issues. Remember super addictive crack? It wasn’t, not any more then cocaine. Crack was cheaper and more available in area’s were people were already socially on the edge. Most “common sense” knowledge about drugs is simply not true.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default A War of Our Making

    There is a huge body of literature that looks at the use of behavior/puritan law systems as a means of controlling subject populations. selil
    The War on Drugs is a war of our making that has caused great harm to our country and others. The saddest part is that it has only made the problem worse in many respects. Unfortunately, the war supports a number of government cottage industries now, and as Selil implied it still has strong support from the influencial Christian Right, so it will be interesting to see if a politician can develop enough political support to end it. Perhaps when the new administration swears in, they can take it upon themselves to make this part of their change agenda, they might have enough political strength to weather the propaganda storm that will attack them.

    Failures:

    1. Like the war on terror (a tactic) we have no strategy for the war on drugs. You can't wage a war on a commodity, so instead we are waging war on an economic system that results in undesired effects on social and political systems.

    2. Targeting the leadership of drug organizations only assists their competitors, it does little to decrease the flow of illegal drugs, it only changes the names of the players involved.

    3. As stated in numerous posts, we are not impacting the demand for this commodity, so by enactng tough laws we not only destroy the potential for an incredible tax base (assuming we legalize marijuana), we also created a huge and powerful underground economy that undermines the legitimate economy and government. During prohibition Capone made millions of dollars providing a commodity that the above ground economy couldn't. This gave Capone the power to buy cops, lawyers, judges, and if they couldn't be bought, hit men could. Prohibition gave guys and organizations like Capone's the power to subvert the government. This is exactly what we're seeing in Latin America (the corruption is spreading), especially Mexico, Central Asia, and increasingly in parts of Africa. They are not only narcoterrorists, but they are a narcostate (like a parallel universe).

    4. Trillions of dollars generated from this trade has resulted in severe corruption, the raise of paramilitaries that can challenge the State, State protection for criiminals in some cases, etc. Mexico is only one case, and the results of this failed strategy are now seriously effecting our national security.

    5. If we effectively marginalize one drug, another one takes it place (meth for example), so again the real issue is the demand side, the market always wins. We can either exploit it by regulating and taxing it, thus shifting the profits from the narcoterrorists to legitimate business men and the State. Before you jump on your high horse, we have legal tobacco and alcohol industries, or continue to make the situation worse. How many more prisons do we need to build?

    I think we're past the myth that marijuana is a gateway drug, and I wonder what would happen if Marijuana was legalized, regulated and taxed? Would it undermine the demand for other drugs? We could make the penalties tougher for the other drugs if the market provided an alternative. Would it dry up the bank accounts of the narcoterrorists? Without their money, how much power would they be able to generate? You could call this leg of the strategy shifting the wealth.

    I'm a realist, the narcoterrorist organizations must be destroyed, but until we destroy the lucrative market for illegal drugs (unforunately that probably means we'll have to provide legal ones), our current tactical efforts will have only result in a temporary impact at most. Once we have a strategy for undermining market demand, we can aggressively pursue destroying the narcoterrorist organizations with strict population and resource control measures.

  7. #7
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Would it undermine the demand for other drugs? We could make the penalties tougher for the other drugs if the market provided an alternative. Would it dry up the bank accounts of the narcoterrorists? Without their money, how much power would they be able to generate? You could call this leg of the strategy shifting the wealth.
    This argument is predicated on the idea that all illegal drugs are equal. They are not. You are going to have a hard time selling anyone on the idea of marijuana as an "alternative" for crack cocaine or methamphetamines, least of all to the addicts. I doubt very much that the difficulty in procuring pot was a factor in getting people addicted to crack cocaine or methamphetamines. Conversely, I doubt that an abundance of legally available marijuana is going to make much difference in dealing with harder drugs and unless I have been misinformed, hard drugs are where the narco-terrorists make their money. Unless you are prepared to legalize those then you aren't going to really have that much effect on their bottom line.

    SFC W

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Incorrect assumption

    My argument isn't based on the assumption that all illegal drugs are equal, but that rather it based on the fact that we have a failed strategy that is not only is failing to stop drug abuse, but it is also undermining numerous nations creating narco-states within those states.

    The State can't stop John and Sue from abusing drugs by declaring draconian laws, regardless of what color the drug may be. The State can and should encourage people not to do so, but the ill effects of over crowded prisons (real criminals that intend to harm your family competing for space for some kid caught abusing drugs), undermining friendly governments, etc. just isn't worth it. I realize it would appear to be morally reprehensible to suddenly say anything goes, but it equally reprehensible to continue along the same track we're on now.

    The drug market (the demand side) can be best be undermined through an intelligent education program (it will take time), private and government business testing for abuse (yea it may be legal, but if you're going to use it, you can't work here), and even getting the insurance companies involved (if you're going to engage in risky behavior you have to pay more for it).

    The benefits of legalizing it appear to be greater than the risks, especially if we in fact shift the wealth from narco-terrorist organizations back to the State, take a burden off our police and prison system so they focus on real criminals, and shift the money we currently use now to entrap kids from buyng small amounts of drugs to education and deterrance programs.

    Some people are going to abuse drugs regardless of what we do. If they have to, they'll stiff glue or paint thinner. Some folks are going to commit suicide regardless of what we do. We'll try and continue to try to help all, but the war on drugs isn't working and it is making other problems worse.

  9. #9
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    This argument is predicated on the idea that all illegal drugs are equal. They are not. You are going to have a hard time selling anyone on the idea of marijuana as an "alternative" for crack cocaine or methamphetamines, least of all to the addicts. I doubt that an abundance of legally available marijuana is going to make much difference in dealing with harder drugs and unless I have been misinformed, hard drugs are where the narco-terrorists make their money.
    SFC W
    Then why do we spend so much money hunting down marijuana producers, traffickers and users?
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  10. #10
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    The drug market (the demand side) can be best be undermined through an intelligent education program (it will take time), private and government business testing for abuse (yea it may be legal, but if you're going to use it, you can't work here), and even getting the insurance companies involved (if you're going to engage in risky behavior you have to pay more for it).
    All of these things are in place now. Why would they work better if these drugs were legal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    The benefits of legalizing it appear to be greater than the risks, especially if we in fact shift the wealth from narco-terrorist organizations back to the State, take a burden off our police and prison system so they focus on real criminals, and shift the money we currently use now to entrap kids from buyng small amounts of drugs to education and deterrance programs.
    The only way to shift the wealth from the narco-terrorist organizations would be to legalize the hard drugs. That is a guaranteed loser. This is not like alcohol. Alcohol certainly has the potential for abuse but no where near the abuse potential of drugs like crack or meth. You can have a drink now and again without becoming addicted, you can even have a drink or two every day with out becoming addicted. It's not like that with the hard drugs. Some drugs begin forming physical addictions with the first dose. If you make these drugs legal then you simply make it more available to people who were unable or unwilling to try them before.

    SFC W

  11. #11
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    Then why do we spend so much money hunting down marijuana producers, traffickers and users?
    Reed
    I don't know. How much money do we spend on that as compared to hunting down those who traffic harder drugs?

    SFC W

  12. #12
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    I don't know. How much money do we spend on that as compared to hunting down those who traffic harder drugs?

    SFC W
    One way of factoring the cost would be to look at the cost of keep an individual incarcerated for a year, and then count the number of convicts incarcerated on mandatory drug laws for marijuana. According to most sites, like this one, the cost is between $20,000 to $40,000 a year. The estimation of # of marijuana users confined primarly for marijuana offenses is 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 of all prisoners or 40,000 individuals. This equals approx $800,000,000 to 1.6B.
    Saying that we are spending a Billion dollars a year on marijuana enforcement is probably being very conservative.
    Reed
    P.S. That 40,000 is State and Federal prisoners only. There are no compiled records on how many of the 600,000 local prisoners are there for marijuana offenses.
    Last edited by reed11b; 11-11-2008 at 12:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  13. #13
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    Alcohol certainly has the potential for abuse but no where near the abuse potential of drugs like crack or meth. You can have a drink now and again without becoming addicted, you can even have a drink or two every day with out becoming addicted. It's not like that with the hard drugs. Some drugs begin forming physical addictions with the first dose. If you make these drugs legal then you simply make it more available to people who were unable or unwilling to try them before.

    SFC W
    Wrong. By clinical definition, if you are having a drink or two every day, you are an alcohol abuser, period. alcohol and nicotine have greater addictive qualities then most "hard" drugs. It is the effect of the drug on the body after long-term use that determines wether a drug is "soft" or "hard", not it's addictive quality. Of course by that standard, Alcohol is a "hard" drug.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Your still focused on the commodity

    First, the argument isn't over the merit of drug abuse, the argument is over the so the war on drugs strategy. Uboat, you keep taking the argument back to the Puritian argument that drugs are bad. Most of us would agree with you, but I also agree with Reed, that a lot of information out there is simply propaganda to justify the war, because those fighting the war have established their own industry/economic system, and they need to keep it going.

    The education against drugs is grossly underfunded, so assuming you can shift some of the wasted millions from the front line effort to the demand side, it may have more effect. The key is make it culturally unacceptable, and that means recruiting some shallow pop stars to help sell that message.

    Alcohol is still legal in the military, but is is much less culturally acceptable than when I first joined a few years ago. It takes time, but it can be done. Admittedly my argument for legalizing drugs shouldn't include all drugs, but you have to yet to challenge any of my points regarding strategy. That is the normal response, and that is why we continue to go down the same old road.

  15. #15
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    Wrong. By clinical definition, if you are having a drink or two every day, you are an alcohol abuser, period.
    That's interesting because most of the literature that I have read states that one drink a day is beneficial and is, in fact, suggested. I'm having trouble making the jump from one drink a day is beneficial to two is abuse. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I would have loved for them to only have had one or two drinks a day. I'm not sure that just having x number of drinks per day is as useful a definition of abuse as a need to have those drinks.


    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    alcohol and nicotine have greater addictive qualities then most "hard" drugs. It is the effect of the drug on the body after long-term use that determines wether a drug is "soft" or "hard", not it's addictive quality. Of course by that standard, Alcohol is a "hard" drug.
    Reed
    I did not say that addictive quality was what determines whether a drug is hard or soft. I was only stating that many hard drugs, cocaine and its derivatives, meth and opiates in particular, are highly addictive. And yes they are highly damaging to the body, even over the short term.

    Nicotine is not really relevant to this discussion. While it is addictive it doesn't really have any mind altering properties.

    SFC W

  16. #16
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    That's interesting because most of the literature that I have read states that one drink a day is beneficial and is, in fact, suggested. I'm having trouble making the jump from one drink a day is beneficial to two is abuse. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I would have loved for them to only have had one or two drinks a day. I'm not sure that just having x number of drinks per day is as useful a definition of abuse as a need to have those drinks.
    SFC W
    First off, let me apologize for my tone. On reading what I typed, I can see where I could be interpreted as being rude. My point on the "clinical" definition of abuse has little to do with my personal feelings on what is healthy or unhealthy, but an example to caution you on buying to much into the current definitions of drug abuse. Can a person drink 1 or 2 drinks a day and be OK? Yep. They could probably to a "hit" or two of hard drugs a day and still function too. Drugs ARE bad for people, no doubt, but the language of some of these posts seem to be based on assumptions and misinformation. Drugs have been demonized beyond recognition to justify the on-going "war on drugs" despite the cost to society as mentioned above. Over a Billion a year to incarcerate marijuana users? There are greater needs for that money. Crime for drugs is based on cost of drugs. Cost of drugs is based on supply and demand (and risk). De-criminalizing drugs (different then legalizing) has a potential to pay big dividends. But don't just take my word for it, talk to police officers and correctional officers. Most of Ken's kids seem to have gravitated LE or correctional work, perhaps he will weigh in on this.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  17. #17
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    First, the argument isn't over the merit of drug abuse, the argument is over the so the war on drugs strategy. Uboat, you keep taking the argument back to the Puritian argument that drugs are bad.
    That's because the center of your argument is that benefits of legalizing drugs is greater risks associated with that course of action. I am disagreeing with that point. I have no doubts that if many of these drugs were legalized that it would drive most of the narco-terrorists out of business. My disagreement is with the idea that once drugs became cheaper and easier to obtain legally that the demand would go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Most of us would agree with you, but I also agree with Reed, that a lot of information out there is simply propaganda to justify the war, because those fighting the war have established their own industry/economic system, and they need to keep it going.

    The education against drugs is grossly underfunded, so assuming you can shift some of the wasted millions from the front line effort to the demand side, it may have more effect. The key is make it culturally unacceptable, and that means recruiting some shallow pop stars to help sell that message.
    Certainly there is a lot of propaganda on both sides of the marijuana issue but I don't think that there is a whole lot of that with most of the harder drugs. Now I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a cultural problem as much as anything else but I don't think that pouring more money into education at the cost of enforcement is going to make a huge difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Alcohol is still legal in the military, but is is much less culturally acceptable than when I first joined a few years ago. It takes time, but it can be done. Admittedly my argument for legalizing drugs shouldn't include all drugs, but you have to yet to challenge any of my points regarding strategy. That is the normal response, and that is why we continue to go down the same old road.
    Honestly that has not been my experience since I have been in. I have seen a lot less tolerance for DUIs and other alcohol related incidences but I haven't really noticed any change in the tolerance for drinking, just so long as you stay off the blotter.

    SFC W

  18. #18
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    One way of factoring the cost would be to look at the cost of keep an individual incarcerated for a year, and then count the number of convicts incarcerated on mandatory drug laws for marijuana. According to most sites, like this one, the cost is between $20,000 to $40,000 a year. The estimation of # of marijuana users confined primarly for marijuana offenses is 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 of all prisoners or 40,000 individuals. This equals approx $800,000,000 to 1.6B.
    Saying that we are spending a Billion dollars a year on marijuana enforcement is probably being very conservative.
    Reed
    P.S. That 40,000 is State and Federal prisoners only. There are no compiled records on how many of the 600,000 local prisoners are there for marijuana offenses.
    I did find this document.

    In 1997, the year for which the most recent data are available, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were firsttime offenders (0.3 percent).
    The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.
    More at the link.

    SFC W
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 01-28-2011 at 03:24 AM. Reason: Fixed link.

  19. #19
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    First off, let me apologize for my tone. On reading what I typed, I can see where I could be interpreted as being rude.
    No Problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    Can a person drink 1 or 2 drinks a day and be OK? Yep. They could probably to a "hit" or two of hard drugs a day and still function too.
    This is the crux of my issue with all this right here. I'm not sure that that statement is true. Perhaps the problem is that when I think of hard drugs I automatically think of Crack, Meth and Heroin. With those drugs there is no safe dose. They are incredibly addictive and incredibly destructive, whereas other drugs that are considered hard drugs such as X are less so.

    SFC W

  20. #20
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Prisons are filled with individuals who’s crime is “simple possession”. In fact, due to the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses, when overcrowding occurs, it is thieves, burglars, and assault convicted criminals that will be released first. Simply being associated with a dealer or even a user is now a felony in most states. The point about the contribution of the individuals is erroneous as well and plays on the stereotype of the typical drug user being nearly homeless and stealing car stereos to feed there addiction. The actual majority of drug abusers maintain fairly steady work and manage to meet there basic needs. Many of the individuals that fall into the stereotype were already at an economic disadvantage or have MH issues. Remember super addictive crack? It wasn’t, not any more then cocaine. Crack was cheaper and more available in area’s were people were already socially on the edge. Most “common sense” knowledge about drugs is simply not true.
    Reed
    In the state in which I worked, possession of very small amounts of marijuana resulted in a simple ticket, if the officer even bothered. If I remember correctly, possession of any amount of cocaine or heroin was charged as a felony, but whether if was vigorously prosecuted as such was another matter. For a first offender or a rich guy, good luck. So I would continue to argue that simple possession and use aren't really penalized. (One thing to consider also is if you can't get a guy for what you really want him for, and he happened to have some drugs on him, you get him for that and that is what the stat will be.)

    The users and addicts I saw didn't make any economic contribution to society and in my view never will no matter what. I only rarely saw the ones who were able to function more or less normally. That they were able to carry on without a fuss meant they would never come to our attention. I agree with you about these people being the majority of drug users. What that means is use of prohibited drugs really doesn't have anything to do with whether you are going to be a productive member of society. You are or you're not.

    Also agree with you completely about "common sense" knowledge about drugs.

    As noted already, the "drug war" takes away from other police work, the kind with victims who complain. Money always seemed to be available for drug stuff but was not so much for burglars.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Similar Threads

  1. Latin American Drugs & links
    By jonSlack in forum Americas
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 12-30-2016, 02:43 AM
  2. Troop ‘Surge’ Took Place Amid Doubt and Debate
    By SWJED in forum Catch-All, OIF
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-31-2008, 03:56 AM
  3. Irregular Challenges and the Emerging Defense Debate
    By SteveMetz in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 06:19 PM
  4. Cheney: Domestic Iraq Debate Encouraging Adversaries
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-10-2006, 10:09 PM
  5. Rapid Pullout From Iraq Urged by Key Democrat
    By SWJED in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-30-2005, 06:45 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •