Over 90,000 US Military Records Leaked

[Guest]

Celery, that was a great read. :)

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Another thing weird at the moment, deaths on our side have absolutely sky rocketed this year. There hasn't been such a high mortality rate in UK forces since 2001, when it all started.

Seems like the Taliban have upped their game somewhat.

The Taliban haven't upped their game; we've upped ours. Op tempo has increased dramatically in Afghanistan and that means casualties. It happens.

[Guest]

The Taliban haven't upped their game; we've upped ours. Op tempo has increased dramatically in Afghanistan and that means casualties. It happens.

Yes, but most of the recent deaths have been from IED's, which would suggest the Taliban are getting more effective.

In the eyes of a politician, the more friendly deaths you have to report to the public, the harder it gets to win the political war. I can't see how this strategy can be possibly be working if it's getting more of our guys killed. :/

Might be obvious, but not many people in the UK care about the Afghans, they just want out boys back home and out of that poop hole.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Yes, but most of the recent deaths have been from IED's, which would suggest the Taliban are getting more effective.

In the eyes of a politician, the more friendly deaths you have to report to the public, the harder it gets to win the political war. I can't see how this strategy can be possibly be working if it's getting more of our guys killed. :/

Might be obvious, but not many people in the UK care about the Afghans, they just want out boys back home and out of that poop hole.

IED operations aren't complicated. If anything, the usage of IED's is an indicator of desperation as their ability to effectively project power into the field is gradually reduced. But what would I know?

[HyperU2 11]

IED's are easily more effective in Afghanistan than Iraq, the roads are so narrow it's almost a guaranteed hit.

[pre-Vet 10]

IED operations aren't complicated. If anything, the usage of IED's is an indicator of desperation as their ability to effectively project power into the field is gradually reduced

absolutly right.

IEDs work like minefields, when you lay em, you cant use that road either. so when you do you have less manoeuvrability.

IEDs are often a compensation for less troops available to fight.

you dont win ground with IEDs.

afghanistan doesn't have so many narrow roads as you might think and through the years the CF are getting pretty handy at finding and clearing IEDs, not even 20% detonates on a target.

that plus more and more MRAPs that are being fielded IEDs become even less effective forcing the INS to come out and fight and thus more voilence last months.

[NoRailgunner 0]

IEDs work like minefields, when you lay em, you cant use that road either. so when you do you have less manoeuvrability.

Do you know that IEDs have a remote/radio controller and often people do press a button to detonate it? If you dont activate it nothing will happen unless its an crap build.

IEDs are often a compensation for less troops available to fight.

IEDs are made and placed to demoralize troops and to slowdown or stop convoys/patrols. Taliban/AlQuaeda do know that they dont have a chance to fight ISAF toe-to-toe.

[pre-Vet 10]

Do you know that IEDs have a remote/radio controller and often people do press a button to detonate it? If you dont activate it nothing will happen unless its an crap build.

IEDs are made and placed to demoralize troops and to slowdown or stop convoys/patrols. Taliban/AlQuaeda do know that they dont have a chance to fight ISAF toe-to-toe.

yeah I do know, pretty well...

most IEDs are pressure plate initiated as they are easier to build and you dont have to use metal wich can be picked up by metal detectors.

another disadvantige about RCIEDs is the simple fact the signal can be jammed. (avery vehicle outside teh wire has a jammer)

all those disadvantiges plus the use of IED burners, fixedwings equiped with EW pods who send out an strong signal at a lot frequensies to detonate these kinds of IEDs.

and for the second part, they still try to (and sometimes with succes) take villages and even outposts. ISAF cant be everywhere every time.

as said before, these guys are not all poor farmers.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Do you know that IEDs have a remote/radio controller and often people do press a button to detonate it? If you dont activate it nothing will happen unless its an crap build.

I'm well aware of the different kinds of detonation systems used by IEDs, thanks.

---------- Post added at 10:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 PM ----------

yeah I do know, pretty well...

most IEDs are pressure plate initiated as they are easier to build and you dont have to use metal wich can be picked up by metal detectors.

another disadvantige about RCIEDs is the simple fact the signal can be jammed. (avery vehicle outside teh wire has a jammer)

all those disadvantiges plus the use of IED burners, fixedwings equiped with EW pods who send out an strong signal at a lot frequensies to detonate these kinds of IEDs.

and for the second part, they still try to (and sometimes with succes) take villages and even outposts. ISAF cant be everywhere every time.

as said before, these guys are not all poor farmers.

Indeed.

"4 Coalition soldiers killed; Taliban seize ____ town!" is a bigger headline (and makes the front page) than

"9 Coalition soldiers killed by roadside bomb!" which barely makes the A section.

[Baff1 0]

The Taliban haven't upped their game; we've upped ours. Op tempo has increased dramatically in Afghanistan and that means casualties. It happens.

As far as I'm aware UK forces haven't upped their tempo at all.

If anything they've reduced it. Consolidated their ground.

I would have expected that doubling the number of troops per square metre/acre should have made them safer.

We expect casualties to go up in operations and in fighting season, but currently with the U.S. surge taking over half of the ground previously managed by the UK, the UK forces are effectively operating at double strength from last year.

I haven't heard of them engaging in any major offensives like they did last year for example although if they were this is the time of year for it.

What I have been noticing is that this year much more of the deaths reported on the news are from gunshot wounds. In previous years this was almost unheard of.

I think the Taliban have learnt to snipe.

I don't think it's static. I expect both sides to have upped their game. I expect they are all constantly upping their game.

If we use thicker armour they will learn to use bigger bombs... any advantage we gain will be short lived. Hopefullty that cuts both ways of course.

If we use a lot of snipers to lethal effect, they will learn from our example and do the same.

We've increased our numbers, and accordiung to the press, so have they.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Baff1

[sputnik monroe 102]

There is no good in WAR no matter what side your on! There is no Good vs Evil! No matter how hard you try to coverup the bad it will always be found out in the end!!]

There is no good or bad you just said. So stop complaining, what ever is supposedly being covered up isn't bad as there is no good or bad.

As for Big Mac vs Baff1, I read through both your arguments and as a unbiased third party I can say Baff1 made a better argument. Big Mac accept you are wrong and quit with the race bating. Baff1 is not racist.

[stgn 39]

The only problem is we kill far more women and children than they do.

Do you have a source for that?

STGN

[Pathy 0]

Given most western sources indicate around 60-80% of civilian casualties are caused by the Taliban, i'd be hard pressed to believe he does.

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Report_Final_SecDef_04_26_10.pdf

From section 3.7:

The insurgents are responsible for 80% of CIVCAS. However, insurgents can exploit and manipulate CIVCAS events to their advantage, while U.S. and international forces are held accountable by the Afghan population for all incidents where there are CIVCAS.

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/09july31-UNAMA-HUMAN-RIGHTS-CIVILIAN-CASUALTIES-Mid-Year-2009-Bulletin.pdf

When compared with the casualties recorded from

June 2008, the numbers of civilians killed by AGEs (anti government elements) in June 2009 increased by 90% (78

civilians were killed by AGEs in June 2008), while deaths resulting from operations by PGF

dropped by 24% (74 civilians were killed by PGF in June 2008), while those killed in

situations where responsibility could not be determined also dropped by 45%

In the first six months of 2009, 59% of

civilians were killed by AGEs and 30.5% by PGF.

Suicide and IED attacks killed more Afghan civilians than any other tactic used by the parties

to the conflict. Although such attacks are frequently directed against military or government

targets, they are often carried out in crowded areas with apparent disregard for the extensive

injury and death they cause to civilians

The willingness of the armed opposition to endanger civilians, including children, with the

use of IEDs points to the AGEs’ apparent disregard for civilian casualties that may arise from

their actions. Far from taking action to minimize the impact of their activities on civilians,

sectors of the armed opposition appear to deliberately favour the use of indiscriminate tactics,

such as the use of IEDs. The statement made in June 2009 by a deputy commander to Mullah

Omar is of particular concern. This statement indicates that fighters should place themselves

among civilians and civilians should be prepared to die because such tactics draw a response

from the PGF and enhances their struggle by undermining public support for the continued

presence of the international military, and international community generally, within

Afghanistan.

http://arm.org.af/file.php?id=2

See the graph on page 4, which indicates 61% of civilian casualties are caused by insurgents.

Unsurprisingly, the number of civilian people killed by the insurgents was significantly

higher than those killed by pro-government Afghan and foreign forces. ARM’s figures

attribute 661 civilian deaths to the insurgents who have been accused of showing little or

no respect to the safety and protection of non-combatants in their armed rebellion

against the government and its foreign supporters. The indiscriminate and widespread

use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) caused more deaths and miseries to Afghan

civilians than any other fighting tactic.

Sorry Baff, I know how convenient it is to offhandedly pull 'facts' out of your arse to back up your opinion, but thats not the way it works.

Incidentally, all this kind of stuff is publically available already, if anyone is shocked by these leaked documents then they haven't been paying attention. Given that they contain nothing new, nothing particularly shocking, and nothing which indicates we've been lied to or misled, I think any argument Mr Assange has made indicating that he has a moral obligation to release them is flawed; I think it's more down to him having a hero complex and wanting attention.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Pathy

[MrBump 10]

IED operations aren't complicated. If anything, the usage of IED's is an indicator of desperation as their ability to effectively project power into the field is gradually reduced. But what would I know?

absolutly right.

IEDs work like minefields, when you lay em, you cant use that road either. so when you do you have less manoeuvrability.

IEDs are often a compensation for less troops available to fight.

you dont win ground with IEDs.

afghanistan doesn't have so many narrow roads as you might think and through the years the CF are getting pretty handy at finding and clearing IEDs, not even 20% detonates on a target.

that plus more and more MRAPs that are being fielded IEDs become even less effective forcing the INS to come out and fight and thus more voilence last months.

Yeah all perfectly true for conventional warfare, however what we're talking about now is guerrilla warfare, where the key is not about projecting power into the field, or having easy mobility, these are more relevant to conventional forces. The Taliban used to do concentrated attacks of conventional warfare in 2006 but this lead to high casualties from NATO air strikes, so they changed tactics to the one we see today. This is not so much desperation but a tried and true method used successfully by the mujahideen against the Soviets for years, tactics like the mining of roads and buildings, destroying bridges, disrupting major road networks, blowing up government facilities, attacking convoys, assassination of local authorites etc. The mujahideen used mines whereas the Taliban use IEDs, which has itself spawned new methods, like where the Taliban purposely call in a tip for the location of an IED, then when the bomb disposal guys are at work they ambush them, shooting and causing chaos.

Also fielding MRAPs helps the troops but what about the civilian trucks that bring in much needed supplies, they're being hit hard, and what about those civilians whose 'hearts and minds' are said to be a big part of a successful COIN strategy?

Anyway I don't want to sound to negative, hopefully this troop reinforcement, oops I mean 'surge' will have a positive effect on the country.

[pre-Vet 10]

Anybody found this strange?

(http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2008/07/AFG20080713n1311.html)

read the report civ casualties and the summary above, dont add up.

(http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2007/09/AFG20070925n944.html)

same here, 3 civ WIA out of nowhere

Yeah all perfectly true for conventional warfare, however ...

still a lot fighting for villages and they still need it.

in Uruzgan IEDs where primarily used to slow and stop the CF movement towards INS held terrain.

they do need ground, don't underestimate the importance of clear supply lines for the INS aswell, (remember ho-ci-mihn trail in nam) its important for bringing in weapons toward these hostile zones and getting poppypaste out. most bridges and important crossings are guarded by afghan forces and they know how to pick out smugglers.

mujahideen did fight with lage numbers in important areas (read "a bear whent over the maintain") and where much more capable to give heavy blows towards the sovjets.

they presentday INS are not. to my knowledge they where never able to destroy a complete CAT.

I'm keeping faith and saw a great improvement between 2008 - 2010 and believe Helmand and Kandahar are the last strongholds.

Edited July 28, 2010 by pre-Vet

[Baff1 0]

Do you have a source for that?

STGN

Wikileaks would be a good one, topically.

I did briefly consider trawling Google to find one when I wrote that, but I couldn't be bothered. My remarks are based upon my own perceptions alone. I would rather that you take them as such than get caught up in some Google link tennis match.

I undertand that people like to see opinions validated, or to share articles with people that they too might find intresting...but all my sources are not on the internet. I use any number of different news medias per day and I have absolutely no issue with people dismissing my opinions out of hand if I don't meet up to their personal criteria for factual accuracy.

---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 AM ----------

Given most western sources indicate around 60-80% of civilian casualties are caused by the Taliban, i'd be hard pressed to believe he does..

Well, being as they are western sources...they would say that wouldn't they.

And where do most western sources get their info?

Given that it is a dangerous area for western journalists to operate.

Sorry matey but if you can pull figures out of your arse, no reason why I can't.

To be a good historian it is better if you look at the opposing sources too, understand the instinctive bias of both sides and then make up your own mind about it.

I think there is an obvious danger where in the west Taliban killings get overestimated and over played and western killings get underestimated and under played.

This to me is just obvious.

Similarly if we were to take the coverage from Al Jazeera or some other more eastern sympatheic sources I expect their estimations to differ substantially.

Hence with examples of Iraq for instance you will get the death toll of civilians being estimated at between 50,000 and 1,000,000 depending on the political slant of your source. Which is more accurate? That's anybodies guess.

At least it was...we now know for sure that the estimates the military release are not estimates at all but deceptions. Our natural suspicions have been confirmed.

And no all that stuff hasn't been publicly available. There has been a major discrepency between the amount of civilian casualties in those reports and the press releases on the incidents the armies involved have issued.

Which rather reinforces my earlier point I feel. That western sources have been shown to not only be incorrect but to have been in many cases deliberate lies.

It is intuative to recognise that we kill more Afghans than Afghans kill us. The firepower advantage is ours.

Obviously anytime a civilian is killed by a Taliban bomb we will spin that story as Taliban deliberately targeting innocents.

Just as any time one of ours does, they will do the same about us.

Again this is just obvious. There will be fanatics on both sides who will be unable or unwilling to recognise this of course but I feel for most moderate people this is pretty intuative stuff. What we are broadly expecting to occour.

---------- Post added at 12:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 AM ----------

I think any argument Mr Assange has made indicating that he has a moral obligation to release them is flawed; I think it's more down to him having a hero complex and wanting attention.

I think both good and bad will come out of it.

Holding the troops to closer account will result in better soldiering. Make no mistake. It will raise their game and in doing so increase their effctiveness.

On the otherhand, it will also raise awareness of those mistakes, lower the moral of their supporters and encourage their enemies to retaliate against them and the people who support them.

Good and bad, and for me...a nice collection of intresting historical war stories to read.

---------- Post added at 12:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

Baff1 is not racist.

Baff1 is a happily interacially married man. I'm a white middle class Brit, but my son won't be any of these things.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1

[echo1 0]

It is intuative to recognise that we kill more Afghans than Afghans kill us. The firepower advantage is ours.

Obviously anytime a civilian is killed by a Taliban bomb we will spin that story as Taliban deliberately targeting innocents.

Just as any time one of ours does, they will do the same about us.

Again this is just obvious. There will be fanatics on both sides who will be unable or unwilling to recognise this of course but I feel for most moderate people this is pretty intuative stuff. What we are broadly expecting to occour.

Are you saying that the Taliban and NATO agendas are morally equivocal?

[Baff1 0]

Morally?

As in who are good guys and who are bad guys?

Sure, they seem pretty "morally equivocal" to me.

Both sides are political extremists willing to kill for their ideals.

Actually, "morally" I prefer the Taliban. Know what I mean? They are at least fighting for control over their own country. For the right to rule a country in which they actually intend to live in.

But I find the concept of good guys and bad guys a little bit too simplistic. Too comic book.

So I don't really view things in that way personally.

I don't view wars as "moral" at all.

I see them as something more along the lines of necessary evils.

(Or in the specific case of Afghanistan, completely unnecessary evils).

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

As for Big Mac vs Baff1, I read through both your arguments and as a unbiased third party I can say Baff1 made a better argument. Big Mac accept you are wrong and quit with the race bating. Baff1 is not racist.

No one asked for a "unbiased third party"(that is itself is in laughable since to be unbiased you'd have to be something other than human.) to judge our arguments, I said what needed to be said and let it be. I'm not interested in who put forth the better argument since from my point of view I'm right and vice versa with Baff1. I suggest you follow my example and let it be. Edited July 29, 2010 by Big Mac

[celery 8]

I'm not interested in who put forth the better argument since from my point of view I'm right and vice versa with Baff1.

A delicious quote to sum up the state of society.

In all seriousness, there may be points of view to something but some of them are less correct or not as well rationalized than others. You can't defend an argument by declaring it or its counterargument a point of view.

[sputnik monroe 102]

No one asked for a "unbiased third party" to judge our arguments

And no one asked for you original argument against Baff1, your point? Perhaps you should have Private messaged your race baiting attacks to Baff1 instead of posting them in the public area, if you didn't want outside opinion on your slander.

that is itself is in laughable since to be unbiased you'd have to be something other than human

I am merely a man that's true. I simply gave an observation that was unbiased in as far as I knew neither of you or your backgrounds.

I said what needed to be said and let it be

It can easily be argued that nothing you said needed to be said. As for letting it be, you did not. You continued race baiting and attacking Baff1's character for several more post.

I'm not interested in who put forth the better argument since from my point of view I'm right and vice versa with Baff1

Why waste your breath mouthing an opinion in this world if your self admittedly bull headed and believe all others are as well?

I believe Celery summed it up better than I have.

I suggest you follow my example and let it be.

Dully noted and quickly scoffed at. I don't think I'll be following any of your "examples". I've read around a few other post today in the offtopic area. You seem to dabble in the art the ad hominem attack quite frequently.

Baff1 don't start thinking I'm your comrade all the sudden. I disagree with you quite often. I just find the silly race baiting and ad hominem style of debate that Big Mac sunk too quite tiresome. So as far I'm concerned, towards you I'm neutral, neither in agreement or disagreement generally speaking.

[Big Mac 19]

And no one asked for you original argument against Baff1, your point? Perhaps you should have Private messaged your race baiting attacks to Baff1 instead of posting them in the public area, if you didn't want outside opinion on your slander.

Perhaps you should let sleeping lions rest instead of flame baiting. Your comments serve no other purpose except to try to renew an argument that has been settled by two parties.

I am merely a man that's true. I simply gave an observation that was unbiased in as far as I knew neither of you or your backgrounds.

Why did you insist on voicing your observation on a subject that has been dropped when it would serve no purpose?

It can easily be argued that nothing you said needed to be said. As for letting it be, you did not. You continued race baiting and attacking Baff1's character for several more post.

Thats your opinion. You should have voiced it earlier when we were still arguing.

Why waste your breath mouthing an opinion in this world if your self admittedly bull headed and believe all others are as well?

I believe stubbornness is a admirable quality in a person's character.

Dully noted and quickly scoffed at. I don't think I'll be following any of your "examples". I've read around a few other post today in the offtopic area. You seem to dabble in the art the ad hominem attack quite frequently.

Baff1 don't start thinking I'm your comrade all the sudden. I disagree with you quite often. I just find the silly race baiting and ad hominem style of debate that Big Mac sunk too quite tiresome. So as far I'm concerned, towards you I'm neutral, neither in agreement or disagreement generally speaking.

So all you're doing is trying to flame bait? I've let it go and so has Baff1. I respect Baff1 for his intelligence and his skills as debater. That doesn't mean I don't think some of his views are morally flawed, I may even have been exaggerating the point I was trying to make when I referred to him as a racist but even then that still wouldn't explain you bringing up a dead issue in which the only foreseeable outcome is a flame war. Also if you find it tiresome then I suggest you take a break from the forums for awhile.

If you wish to continue this discussion that's your choice, but I refuse to respond further.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Big Mac

[Pathy 0]

Sorry matey but if you can pull figures out of your arse, no reason why I can't.

No, mate, I gave you sources. You gave me a load of histo-babble about opposing sources, then failed to produce any.

You can bullshit as much as you like, but until you produce sources, i'm going to assume, like many others will, that you hold a certain opinion, and that as the sources are inconvenient to that opinion, you're making up offhand 'facts', then offering excuses as to why, when someone posts actual sources, those sources are wrong. By the way, I suggest you double check the sources I posted if you think they're biased. The US mil one? Perhaps. The UN one? Unlikely. The Afghan Rights Monitor? I'd say definately not. I'd be willing to bet the discrepency is covered in the 80% to 59% to 61% difference between reports.

To be honest it's offensive for you to just make things up, offensive to the troops on the ground to say "we're killing far more women and children than they do". It makes me think of the type of people who would spit on the troops and called them babykillers. And you are just making things up until you present sources; no ammount of bullshit about "Oh but the western sources.....And you should look at alternative sources......And blah, they don't match my opinion so they're definately not valid" will change that.

And no, it is not intuitive to think that 'more firepower means we're automatically going to be slaughtering whole villages'. At the end of the day, when you take the comments in that direction, you're getting into areas you're not even remotely qualified to comment on. If you knew the ROE our forces operate under, the restraint they have to take, whilst thier own lives are being threatened, you might show a little more respect?

Edited July 29, 2010 by Pathy

[pre-Vet 10]

Morally?

As in who are good guys and who are bad guys?

Sure, they seem pretty "morally equivocal" to me.

Both sides are political extremists willing to kill for their ideals.

Actually, "morally" I prefer the Taliban. Know what I mean? They are at least fighting for control over their own country. For the right to rule a country in which they actually intend to live in..

they are fighting for the drug money, don't believe eveything you see on tv.

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

oh yeah and I'm not a political extremist, I would kill somebody to make him stop trying to kill me or my mates.

[Baff1 0]

To be honest it's offensive for you to just make things up, offensive to the troops on the ground to say "we're killing far more women and children than they do". It makes me think of the type of people who would spit on the troops and called them babykillers. And you are just making things up until you present sources; no ammount of bullshit about "Oh but the western sources.....And you should look at alternative sources......And blah, they don't match my opinion so they're definately not valid" will change that.

And no, it is not intuitive to think that 'more firepower means we're automatically going to be slaughtering whole villages'. At the end of the day, when you take the comments in that direction, you're getting into areas you're not even remotely qualified to comment on. If you knew the ROE our forces operate under, the restraint they have to take, whilst thier own lives are being threatened, you might show a little more respect?

I do know the ROE and as far as I am concerned I do show respect and have clearly mentioned my support for it and why in every post I have made. Repeatedly.

That you have read my posts and chosen to ignore that element of it is perhaps frustrating for me. Especially given as it was the explanation of and my approval for those controversial ROE that has led this debate to where we are now.

Not only have I shown respect in my posts for those that don't kill babies, I have even shown respect for those that do and why.

Neither am I one of those whose spits on my troops for being baby killers.

Equally however I am not one of those who spits on the Taliban for the same reason.

I firmly beleive that if you are unable to respect your enemy, then you will not be best placed to be able to fight him. That you will not be emotionally best prepared to treat him with the same humanity you would prefer him to treat you with.

Dehumanisation of the enemy engenders more atrocities, not less.

You are quite correct I have provided no sources for you. My opinions are my own.

Rather than dissect and rebutt every source you provide and then link you to some opposingly viewed source that you can poo poo and discredit I will refer you to my earlier comment about where the information for the statistics is gathered from. Which every source collates them from, the figures that have been released by our militaries will be likely have been a factor in them. And all of them are pretty uncheckable in their detail given the nature of the enviroment.

I fully expect in the aftermath of this Wikileaks release for a good many of them to face revision including some of those you have provided.

So rather than play Google tennis with you I would prefer to discuss only my own perceptions of the statistics. I do not seek to validate the factuallity of those perceptions, only the factually of them being what I choose to believe.

I understand and approve of your patriotism. I respect that you hold faith in western sources above others. I don't respect people who bat for the enemy team. I don't feel my overview of the statistics is based on any one or two or even three sources but rather a genreal overview of many sources often from opposing idealogies and often from so called "independants" over the years.

I think perhaps the most telling from me was reading personal accounts from actaul Afghan civilians. Notably female ones who had been oppressed under the Taliban and although their hatred for the Taliban was ourspoken and made most clear...their greater hatred for the coalition and the woes they have brought with them was not lost on me.

Those that we expect to have most to gain from our endeavours are speaking of how much more they have lost.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1