Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps you should be focuses on the present, in which Obama has ruined the nation?
Obama is trying to repair the damage caused by 8 years of Bush misrule, and he is doing it over the concerted efforts of Republicans to obstruct progress. Their agenda is to cripple the economy and therefore keep a Democrat from being successful.
How tragic that so much of America remains oblivious to this, but in your case and many others, you are likely fine with this approach.
I am not surprised you don't want to continue our "conversation". Like I said you can dish it out but, can't take it.
You can't make statements like, " May Cheney and the book cookers rot in hell ", and not expect to be challenged.
Unlike you, I believe everyone has a right to express their opinions.
The main point I was trying to convey, sorry if I didn't make it clear, was that you show so much hate for Chaney( which I don't understand) for his involvement but, you never mention ANY dem. Why is that?
I posted quotes from the Clinton admin other dem politicians who have as much culpability as Cheney does.
Clinton signed for a regime change in Iraq. Why?
The Intel Bush had was the SAME Intel the Congress and the Clinton admin had.
I did question why if you were so against us being there why you re-upped. You gave an explaination and I said I believe you are sincere.
Because you are a veteran does Not give you special privileges to say what you did about Chaney and not be challenged.
As a veteran myself I do honor ALL those that have served but, that does not stop me from challenging statements that I disagree with. That is what this forum is supposed to be about.
If you can't handle disagreement, stay away.
P.S. if you do go back, be safe.
Quick, thanks for the kind sentiment. I am not speaking out against Cheney because I think that's my right as a veteran. There is ample evidence that Cheney is the one who really did the dirty work of cooking the books. (Evidence to follow.) In the aftermath of the Iraq war, I think many of the Bushies were mislead -- namely Powell, Rice and probably even Bush himself. I don't hold grudges against people for making honest mistakes. Whatever, **** happens. However, I don't put Cheney in the "honest mistake" category.
I have no qualms with you saying whatever you like or expressing whatever opinon you have. But I don't tolerate others' questioning my service. You go ahead and say what you'd like, but don't expect me to just passively absorb slanders on my integrity or character. As a fellow veteran, I'm sure you understand.
Here's a few (of thousands) of articles which outline the nonsense that went on. I think this points back to Cheney.
----
Bush 'skewed facts to justify attack on Iraq'
A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.
A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terror groups.
This team, self-mockingly called the cabal, "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defence Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
...
The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a case against Iraq. "There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal," Mr Cannistraro said. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/31/1054177765483...
As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.
During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush, and other very senior policy makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.
The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy makers at the table.
Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested – until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
... http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=6e9d5502599dc6a2 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
A call to maintain CIA independence.
As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.
"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.
This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: "A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war," the news service reported recently. "They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary."
... http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-10-24-oped-ba...
U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
...
The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.
Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."
...
They believe the administration, before going to war, had a "moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas."
CHEMICAL WEAPONS REPORT 'SIMPLY WRONG'
The top Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said on Friday U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to fear troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the March invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam.
Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in a television interview.
... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&nci...
CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida
The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.
As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.
... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974182,00.h...
Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data
A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.
Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.
They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.
A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.
The group’s members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts withsenior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence was“cooked†to persuade Congress to authorise the war.
The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced “a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportionsâ€. They write in the letter to Mr Bush: “While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war.
“You may not realise the extent of the current ferment within the intelligence community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin — cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq.â€
... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-698028,00....
I'm just wondering if there is a single conservative who thinks George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were telling the truth about the rationale for invading Iraq.
Either they were grossly negligent in believing concocted intelligence, or they lied to the American people and the world when they declared that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power, and U.S. troops had to occupy his country.
I didn't believe them in 2003, and even though many democrats also lied or were complicit, there is a definitive difference between someone saying Iran is a potential threat, and President Obama ordering a full scale invasion of Iran. Talk, especially from politicians, is cheap.
I wonder what you tell the mothers of kids who were killed or maimed in Iraq, do you tell them they died for a lie, and that those who ordered them there are war criminals? That would be the honest answer.
First I want to identify myself as a far right wing republican teabagger.
With the exception of the War of 1812, along with the limited incursions into Mexico during he Mexican revolution, every war the United States has been involved in outside of our borders since our founding has been wrong.
The Spanish American war was a total trump up to sell Hurst Newspapers.
America had no business being involved in their WW1 or WW2. Germany only declared war on the United States after Roosevelt proceeded to back England and the Soviet Union.
Back to WW1 Japan had been our ally but when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.
Then we come up to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Somalia etc etc which were all useless wars that Americans allowed themselves to get stampeded into.
Then we come up to some sort of warped idea of parity in the value of lives. Somehow if we can save the lives of three Somalians by sacrificing two Americans that is a good trade when the entire idea is morally bankrupt.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Think of the lives and treasure saved if only American leadership had followed Washington's advice for the past 100 years.
Vietnam was my war and those that died there are more than names on a wall. These were real people all 56,000 of them.
My boyhood friend Steve Segura was one of them.
Steve was an only child who lost his dad when he was an infant.
His mother never remarried and everything she ever did, said or breathed revolved around her only son and when he died she had nobody. I feel bad today I never followed up with her, I should have stopped by after I got home but never did.
We were in Vietnam at the same time he in Tay Ninh City while I was stationed near Di An which is only 50 miles or so apart.
On the same day Steve lost his life 47 other American boys lost theirs. The 47 wasn't a weekly or monthly tally it was for one day.
Towards the end of my tour I remember one week where the death toll dropped below 200 for the week and we all celebrated such a low KIA rate.
It still haunts me every veterans day. Steven should have been allowed to live, marry and have grandchildren.
Steven is why we should completely pull out of Afghanistan today. The entire country isn't worth the life of one Steven Segura.
Steve's memory still haunts me every veterans day... to me veterans day has never been a holiday.
So that you know he was real here's a couple clips from my high school yearbook.
We were good friends, among my best friends all through junior high and high school. We talked a lot about what we wanted to do and Steve wanted to be in the medical profession. Hard to believe closing in on 43 years.
Think of me as you want but in my opinion the lives of every single Vietnamese in both North and South Vietnam was not worth the life of Steve Segura.
So you asked who was guilty?
Who allowed illegals to stay in this country after their Visa's ran out?
Who wanted them here in the first place? Flight training for what?
But it goes back farther than that. 9/11 should never have happened in the first place, we should not have been involved in Afghanistan back in the 1980's in the first place. We should not have sided with Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We should have followed George Washington's advice and stayed neutral not getting entangled in foreign commitments.
You bring up what do we tell mothers of American soldiers slain on foreign battlefields. Every President from Theodore Roosevelt on should have been forced to crawl to the front doors of the mothers who lost their sons and beg forgiveness on their knees.
It is really stupid. As far as spreading democracy around the world while freeing enslaved peoples in foreign lands I don't see anything about that anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
If I were President every single troop would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan within 72 hours of my taking the oath of office. But I am not worthy to be President, instead we get candidates that spew
Quote:
"I will promise you this: that if we haven't gotten our troops out by the time I'm president it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. I will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."
- Barack Obama, October 27, 2007
And three years later you still can't take it to the bank. I know, but he is trying hard.
Germany only declared war on the United States after Roosevelt proceeded to back England and the Soviet Union.
Wait, what? Germany declared war after their Axis ally Japan blew up Pearl Harbor and immediately proceeded to sink US ships right of the US coast - Operation Drumbeat. There wasn't much else for the US to do...
Are there any conservatives who still believe the stated reason for invading Iraq?
Still believe?
I'm an ultra-conservative and I was the one telling you all it was crap. I knew or knew of most of the military brass paraded as fools on Main Stream Media and I assure, you not one of those men has ever seen a nuclear or chemical warhead in their life. They could have been sitting on nuclear warheads in the studio and not even known it, that's how ignorant and uninformed they are.
You invaded Iraq to fulfill your long-term Geo-political strategy, and for no other reason.
Setting aside moral and legal arguments, if you're an American, then Bush did the right thing.
As I've repeatedly said, the end-game is the eastern Russia republics rich in all manner of natural resources including oil, coal, natural gas, timber, metal ores, strategic minerals and other non-metallic minerals.
In order to "win" you must control Central Asia, which is the staging point. And to control Central Asia, you must control Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, or at the very least, Iraq and Iran, because you need total control of the Persian Gulf so that you can have air, rail and road access from the Persian Gulf to Central Asia.
Right now, Iran is a serious sticking point, because it is in your way and holding you back.
Long-term Geo-Political strategy is not something you execute in a matter of days, weeks or months. It takes decades, like 25-35 years. This was all planed back in 1974 when the Social Democrats came out of the closet as neo-Conservatives.
Again, ignoring the moral and legal implications, if you fail in your plan, then you will be on your hands and knees praying to any god you can find for the "good ol' days" of 9% unemployment.
So you have a bit of a conundrum here. On the one hand, you claim to abhor war, but on the other hand you cannot tolerate 9% unemployment and a "bad economy."
You will have to choose which, war or unemployment, is more palatable to you.
I don't know anything about Africa, but if I were to make an educated guess, I would say the US is making some adjustments in the event it fails with its Grand Plan. If the US fails in seizing the eastern Russian republics, then at the very least, the US will have to thwart BRIC's development of sub-Saharan Africa, and then only way for the US to do that is to have a forward operating base somewhere in Africa, like in Libya.
Mircea, ever the realist -- I think Cheney pretty much is on the same page as you. Yes, he cooked the books, but he did what he had to do in his mind to protect American interests as he, and you, see it. So what do you think is going to happen if Iran gains control of Iraq (as I believe will happen), and we fail to hold Afghanistan in any significant way? And we can't come up with a good enough, justifiable reason, to invade Iran?
Wait, what? Germany declared war after their Axis ally Japan blew up Pearl Harbor and immediately proceeded to sink US ships right of the US coast - Operation Drumbeat. There wasn't much else for the US to do...
First off let me say I am not sticking up for Hitler or his Nazi henchmen they were all deplorable human beings.
Germany declared war three days after Pearl Harbor on December 11th.
Among the reasons for war were America's politicians in charge. President Franklin Roosevelt leading the way were clearly on the side of England and France. The United States enacted several pieces of legislation and policies that clearly helped England:
Destroyers for bases (50 old WW I flush deck destroyers, needing major overhaul before use, but still 50 warships is 50 warships) in exchange for US being granted leases to use British islands in the Atlantic for bases
Escorting of convoys as far as Iceland using American destroyers. This effectively prevented u-boat attacks along that part of the route.
The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act so that Britain did not have to pay cash at time of purchase for war material.
Even with these brazen acts, from war's start in 1939 thru December 1941, American ships could still sail the world's oceans to the allied nations nations without being attacked by German U-Boats.
We should have stayed neutral but the usual scare tactics, such as German troops dividing American soil with the Japanese to occupy the eastern half the the mainland, were used with impunity but considering it today is laughable.
Quick, thanks for the kind sentiment. I am not speaking out against Cheney because I think that's my right as a veteran. There is ample evidence that Cheney is the one who really did the dirty work of cooking the books. (Evidence to follow.) In the aftermath of the Iraq war, I think many of the Bushies were mislead -- namely Powell, Rice and probably even Bush himself. I don't hold grudges against people for making honest mistakes. Whatever, **** happens. However, I don't put Cheney in the "honest mistake" category.
I have no qualms with you saying whatever you like or expressing whatever opinon you have. But I don't tolerate others' questioning my service. You go ahead and say what you'd like, but don't expect me to just passively absorb slanders on my integrity or character. As a fellow veteran, I'm sure you understand.
Here's a few (of thousands) of articles which outline the nonsense that went on. I think this points back to Cheney.
----
Bush 'skewed facts to justify attack on Iraq'
A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.
A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terror groups.
This team, self-mockingly called the cabal, "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defence Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
...
The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a case against Iraq. "There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal," Mr Cannistraro said. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/31/1054177765483...
As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.
During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush, and other very senior policy makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.
The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy makers at the table.
Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested – until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
... http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=6e9d5502599dc6a2 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
A call to maintain CIA independence.
As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.
"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.
This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: "A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war," the news service reported recently. "They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary."
... http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-10-24-oped-ba...
U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
...
The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.
Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."
...
They believe the administration, before going to war, had a "moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas."
CHEMICAL WEAPONS REPORT 'SIMPLY WRONG'
The top Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said on Friday U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to fear troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the March invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam.
Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in a television interview.
... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&nci...
CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida
The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.
As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.
... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974182,00.h...
Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data
A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.
Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.
They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.
A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.
The group’s members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts withsenior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence was“cooked” to persuade Congress to authorise the war.
The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced “a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions”. They write in the letter to Mr Bush: “While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war.
“You may not realise the extent of the current ferment within the intelligence community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin — cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq.”
... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-698028,00....
Let me be clear. I never, IMO questioned your service. I did question why someone who so vehemently seems to be opposed to our being in Iraq would re-up and go back many times.
I would think even you can see where that would raise some questions.
I also know that you hate Chaney, In your opinion, blaming him for whatevr you blame him for.
I looked over your list of articles. I even opened the first one, SMU.
Then I looked where the rest came from. Democrat Underground. Give me a break.
ALL are opinion pieces. Some very biased.
I can provide just as many articles, if not more to refute your articles. In honesty, I don't think it would do anything to change your mind.
We can agree to dis-agree, respectfully.
As you have revealed some of your back ground I will, I usually don't, reveal that I worked in Intelligence at the time of 9-11 and for many years after. so I do know some facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
