Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffee Lounge
smarauder68

The Truth About US Forces Withdrawing From Iraq

I've seen it with my own eyes...I didn't believe it until I actually did this story.

http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=91678
70kmph

Good story...stay safe man !


Link
cardinal guzman

Next stop - sub Saharan Africa.

Stay safe SM.
smarauder68

cardinal guzman wrote:
Next stop - sub Saharan Africa.

Stay safe SM.


I think Obama has us correctly focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan for the time being...After that, Yemen would be my next favorite...I think the Iran situation will get solved thru the UN or with pressure of more severe sanctions. Or the people will rise up and over-throw the current regime.

Yemen is on our radar as an Al Qaeda training ground.

Africa? If we go anywhere in Africa, I'd bet on Darfur before Sub-Sahara.

The next big story for me will be on Aug 14th when the last American combat forces(4-2 stryker unit) rolls across the Kuwaiti border. We're down to 65,000 total troops in Iraq and will hit 50,000 by Aug 31st.
Boogerd_Fan

"next favourite"

how many more stones do you need to lift up to see what creatures lie beneath?
cardinal guzman

smarauder68 wrote:
I'd bet on Darfur before Sub-Sahara.


I'd count Sudan as being sub-Sahara.

Sudan, DR Congo, Equatorial Guinea - stick a pin in the map - fighting the Chinese for oil and minerals via insurgency and counter insurgency.
cardinal guzman

As an aside SM, do you really believe in Al Qaeda? I mean really?
smarauder68

cardinal guzman wrote:
As an aside SM, do you really believe in Al Qaeda? I mean really?


Are you trying to say the Chinese are using Al Qaeda as a front for their oil war vs the USA? That's a good one...I can't see the pragmatic Chinese going there and taking that kind of risk. They're far too calculating and careful to try such a thing.

Yes, I believe Al Qaeda exists on its own.
cardinal guzman

smarauder68 wrote:
cardinal guzman wrote:
As an aside SM, do you really believe in Al Qaeda? I mean really?


Are you trying to say the Chinese are using Al Qaeda as a front for their oil war vs the USA?


No I'm absolutely not - Al Qaeda is our baby. I'm saying the Chinese have cottoned onto the tactic of formenting insurgency in a country then moving in with military aid to fight the 'insurgents' and protect the oil ahem elected government. Just like we and the Russians and everyone else has always done since the banana republic was invented.

Up and down the congo it's getting pretty muddy now as to who is on who's side.
smarauder68

cardinal guzman wrote:
smarauder68 wrote:
cardinal guzman wrote:
As an aside SM, do you really believe in Al Qaeda? I mean really?


Are you trying to say the Chinese are using Al Qaeda as a front for their oil war vs the USA?


No I'm absolutely not - Al Qaeda is our baby. I'm saying the Chinese have cottoned onto the tactic of formenting insurgency in a country then moving in with military aid to fight the 'insurgents' and protect the oil ahem elected government. Just like we and the Russians and everyone else has always done since the banana republic was invented.

Up and down the congo it's getting pretty muddy now as to who is on who's side.


You ever hear of the 5 families conspiracy?
cardinal guzman

smarauder68 wrote:


You ever hear of the 5 families conspiracy?


Nah - I just googled it though and have heard similar stuff. As a rule, I don't spend time thinking about that kind of thing, basically remembering that old tennet about having the grace to accept the things I can't change and all that. What are your views on the Rothschilds and Bilderburgers?
smarauder68

cardinal guzman wrote:
smarauder68 wrote:


You ever hear of the 5 families conspiracy?


Nah - I just googled it though and have heard similar stuff. As a rule, I don't spend time thinking about that kind of thing, basically remembering that old tennet about having the grace to accept the things I can't change and all that. What are your views on the Rothschilds and Bilderburgers?


I think the theories about the 5 families, including the Rockefellers were pretty much spot on until the 90's.  I believe their influence waned from the 90's on.  Its pretty interesting when you look at the financial influences they had.  Rothchild was influential and had a pretty good grasp on the DAX and top European markets, while Rockefeller controlled the NYSE. Add in a few oil barons and they were able to buy alot of people and elections and CIA agendas...etc...
thunderthighs

being a soldier myself, italian army..cap.maj is my rank..

i feel so bad for american lives lost without purpose.

bring you boys home...ciao
smarauder68

My latest story...The last Brigade Combat Team has left Iraq. - Aug 19th

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/93078/four-deuce
cardinal guzman

Loving your work Scott, but there are still 52, 000 troops there - not forgeting all the one who are going back on better wages as Blackwater employees.
Enchantress

cardinal guzman wrote:
Loving your work Scott, but there are still 52, 000 troops there - not forgeting all the one who are going back on better wages as Blackwater employees.


+1 CG - all they've done is a) move a lot of those troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and b) rename combat troops to "support" when it is understood they will be engaging in combat...

Obama, Bush, different rhetoric, same results.
smarauder68

Enchantress wrote:
cardinal guzman wrote:
Loving your work Scott, but there are still 52, 000 troops there - not forgeting all the one who are going back on better wages as Blackwater employees.


+1 CG - all they've done is a) move a lot of those troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and b) rename combat troops to "support" when it is understood they will be engaging in combat...

Obama, Bush, different rhetoric, same results.


The language is key...I was actually NOT allowed to use the world "Last" in my story...Even though all of the civilian media hailed as the "End of combat ops" and some even "end of the war(as we know it)."

The soldiers will be out by Dec 2011...the Contractors by 2012. Obama is doing the right thing...Afghanistan is where our attention is needed the most.  The Iraqi military will have to sink or swim without us.
cardinal guzman

smarauder68 wrote:
...the Contractors by 2012.


What, you reckon we can lift all the oil by then? That's the worst FP you've ever made.
Enchantress

smarauder68 wrote:


The soldiers will be out by Dec 2011...the Contractors by 2012. Obama is doing the right thing...Afghanistan is where our attention is needed the most.  The Iraqi military will have to sink or swim without us.


Wow, you actually believe that don't you?

Laughable. Sure the US troops are needed in Afghanistan. Needed that is to perpetuate another illegal war in the name of US imperialism.
smarauder68

Enchantress wrote:
smarauder68 wrote:


The soldiers will be out by Dec 2011...the Contractors by 2012. Obama is doing the right thing...Afghanistan is where our attention is needed the most.  The Iraqi military will have to sink or swim without us.


Wow, you actually believe that don't you?

Laughable. Sure the US troops are needed in Afghanistan. Needed that is to perpetuate another illegal war in the name of US imperialism.


You can argue about whether the US are imperialists but you can't argue about the US having a legitimate interest in getting after Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Or are you another of those wackos who feel George W brought down World Trade center so he could start the wars?
cardinal guzman

smarauder68 wrote:
Or are you another of those wackos who feel George W brought down World Trade center so he could start the wars?


Love your use of the preemptive adhominem there Scott - crude but effective.

So you think it's less wacko to believe that an evil madman got a load of quasi-religious maniacs to pull this off becaude of some misguided hatred of 'our freedoms', rather than a  frighteningly powerful group of megalomaniacs did it in order to garner obscene amounts of wealth for themselves?

I'm completely open-minded about what happened that day until I ever see proof one way or the other - which is unlikely as the crime scene was taken to china and turned into cars or buried.

That said, 'follow the money' is always a good rule of thumb don't you think?
Enchantress

smarauder68 wrote:
Or are you another of those wackos who feel George W brought down World Trade center so he could start the wars?


I suppose that might work for you in the school yard but I don't respond to petty ad hominem attacks.

Let us know when you come up with something better than childish name calling...
berck

Scott,

Just got the opportunity to finally see your video piece. Nicely done. Very professional sounding voice too.
Slapshot 3

The last COMBAT Troops left Germany in around Feb 1946....... We're still there, support?? Police??

I DO NOT see the US pulling all it's troops out of Iraq while there is any unrest in the Middle east/North Africa Region, 2012 no chance, would be too expensive to send them all back.

The timings are all quite interesting, Combat Troop Withdrawals, building Mosques around Ground Zero in New York....What's Obama up to?? Is this a global solution to terrorism by capitualation??

I think it's bollocks and completely dishonours the memory of every single person that died in the Twin Towers, yet they have the hypocrasy to criticise the Scottish Government for letting Maegrahi home to die. I disagree with both elements, No way should they be building a mosque in NYC and Maegrahi should have been left to rot, he was Gadaffi's scapegoat so let him take the rap. Next thing the Libyans will be building a shrine in Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie.
Fontfroide

I am never sure how the language gets used to indicate the 'end of wars'.  There are still 50,000 US military troops in Iraq, still 75,000 contract troops, and then all the civilians who are extracting the oil and building whatever they can get contracts for.  I don't think the thousands of people in the HUGE American embassy complex have gone home.  The Americans of various paymasters will be there for many years to come, unless there is no oil or profit to be made in 'reconstruction' of what they destroyed.  THEN they will abandon the place to whoever wants it.  It is a sure thing that the 125,000 private and public troops are not teaching the Iraqi police about traffic control and helping old folks cross streets.  In any case, the Iraqis seem to be dressed and armed pretty well in the TV news shots.  Guess who sold them the clothes and weapons.  The USA will be there for ages.  Buying, selling and making things secure for buying and selling.

The way the global terrorist threats have been constructed, there will be excuses to invade, occupy or control areas of the world for many years to come.  I suppose eventually this huge military empire will bankrupt the American economy, but not if various other countries continue to support it, China for example.  Look at the Russians, they just could not keep it up and fell apart.  American is certainly resilient and powerful, but there are a few cracks beginning to get wider.  It should be interesting times.
smarauder68

cardinal guzman wrote:
smarauder68 wrote:
Or are you another of those wackos who feel George W brought down World Trade center so he could start the wars?


Love your use of the preemptive adhominem there Scott - crude but effective.

So you think it's less wacko to believe that an evil madman got a load of quasi-religious maniacs to pull this off becaude of some misguided hatred of 'our freedoms', rather than a  frighteningly powerful group of megalomaniacs did it in order to garner obscene amounts of wealth for themselves?

I'm completely open-minded about what happened that day until I ever see proof one way or the other - which is unlikely as the crime scene was taken to china and turned into cars or buried.

That said, 'follow the money' is always a good rule of thumb don't you think?


Do I think Cheney(notice I omit Bush) and friends were influenced by greed when they seized the chance to start wars? Absolutely! But I also believe they were rightfully going after Al Qaeda after the 5th major(93 World Trade Center, 95 Saudi attack on AF base, 98 Twin Bombings at US embassies, 2000 USS Cole bombed) attack against US interests in 8 year.

Did the Clinton regime coordinate all 4 of those attacks?

Did the Bush regime seize the oppurtunity to war monger, knowing they would profit? Perhaps...But they also had an obligation to respond to the attacks...Something Clinton and company failed to do adequately while overly consumed with domestic scandals.

I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but the greatest arguement against large scale conspiracy theories is that nobody has talked or squeeled in 10 years. There would have been 100's and maybe 1000's in the "know" regarding a 9/11 conspiracy. Not one person has talked.

I despised the Bush regime as much as anybody when they over-reacted and entered Iraq...but it was merely a case of them seizing on the oppurtunity before them...No chance in hell they coulda pulled off something as evil as you suggest.

Moving forward, I believe Obama will force the military to stick to his pledges regarding the withdrawal. I suspect the Iraqi General who says they need our help thru 2020 is on the Halliburton-KBR payroll...Hopefully Obama will stick to his pledge...

The Al Qaeda and Taliban were the original enemy and protagonists and our efforts in taking the fight to them are justified and warranted. Sitting back(Clinton era) and doing nothing gave us 9/11.
thunderthighs

poor american lives to conquer Oil cartels..

america lost face, to much....ciao
Bartali

Slapshot 3 wrote:
The timings are all quite interesting, Combat Troop Withdrawals, building Mosques around Ground Zero in New York....What's Obama up to?? Is this a global solution to terrorism by capitualation??

I think it's bollocks and completely dishonours the memory of every single person that died in the Twin Towers ....


Wooo ... hang on there.  Terrorists blew up the towers (and people of all faiths within then), not Muslims per se.  Are you suggesting we should not have catholic churches in the UK because of all the atrocities committed by the IRA??
Slapshot 3

Bartali wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:
The timings are all quite interesting, Combat Troop Withdrawals, building Mosques around Ground Zero in New York....What's Obama up to?? Is this a global solution to terrorism by capitualation??

I think it's bollocks and completely dishonours the memory of every single person that died in the Twin Towers ....


Wooo ... hang on there.  Terrorists blew up the towers (and people of all faiths within then), not Muslims per se.  Are you suggesting we should not have catholic churches in the UK because of all the atrocities committed by the IRA??


No, what I'm suggesting is that in terms of global events, 9/11 was a truly global event, the Mosque would be heralded as a monument to their victory, i personally think that's wrong, it's that location. This is one event where the religion and the terrorists cannot be seperated in my view. It would be a bit like the Germans building a memorial to their own war dead outside Auchwitz.

I have no particular religeous bent and people are allowed to worship whatever faith they want wherever they want, I just believe certain locations should be kept sacrosanct to the memories of what has gone on there in the past.
berck

Slapshot 3 wrote:
Bartali wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:
The timings are all quite interesting, Combat Troop Withdrawals, building Mosques around Ground Zero in New York....What's Obama up to?? Is this a global solution to terrorism by capitualation??

I think it's bollocks and completely dishonours the memory of every single person that died in the Twin Towers ....


Wooo ... hang on there.  Terrorists blew up the towers (and people of all faiths within then), not Muslims per se.  Are you suggesting we should not have catholic churches in the UK because of all the atrocities committed by the IRA??


No, what I'm suggesting is that in terms of global events, 9/11 was a truly global event, the Mosque would be heralded as a monument to their victory, i personally think that's wrong, it's that location. This is one event where the religion and the terrorists cannot be seperated in my view. It would be a bit like the Germans building a memorial to their own war dead outside Auchwitz.

I have no particular religeous bent and people are allowed to worship whatever faith they want wherever they want, I just believe certain locations should be kept sacrosanct to the memories of what has gone on there in the past.


There is already a Mosque about the same distance from ground zero as the one being built. I can understand why people find it offense, but there's one already there. I really don't have any issue about the new one being built, but I agree that it would probably be best if it was built a bit further away
Slapshot 3

berck wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:
Bartali wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:
The timings are all quite interesting, Combat Troop Withdrawals, building Mosques around Ground Zero in New York....What's Obama up to?? Is this a global solution to terrorism by capitualation??

I think it's bollocks and completely dishonours the memory of every single person that died in the Twin Towers ....


Wooo ... hang on there.  Terrorists blew up the towers (and people of all faiths within then), not Muslims per se.  Are you suggesting we should not have catholic churches in the UK because of all the atrocities committed by the IRA??


No, what I'm suggesting is that in terms of global events, 9/11 was a truly global event, the Mosque would be heralded as a monument to their victory, i personally think that's wrong, it's that location. This is one event where the religion and the terrorists cannot be seperated in my view. It would be a bit like the Germans building a memorial to their own war dead outside Auchwitz.

I have no particular religeous bent and people are allowed to worship whatever faith they want wherever they want, I just believe certain locations should be kept sacrosanct to the memories of what has gone on there in the past.


There is already a Mosque about the same distance from ground zero as the one being built. I can understand why people find it offense, but there's one already there. I really don't have any issue about the new one being built, but I agree that it would probably be best if it was built a bit further away


Wasn't aware of that. I assume it's been there a while?? Doesn't change my opinion though, I don't think this new Mosque should be so close to Ground Zero
Mrs John Murphy

SS sorry but I have to disagree. Would you say that there should be no Catholic Churches near the sites of IRA atrocities? or Protestant Churches near Loyalist atrocities?

Al Quaeda no more represents Islam than the IRA represents Catholicism, or the UDA represents Protestantism, or for that matter no more than evangelicals represent Christianity, or ultra-zionists represent Judaism.

There is a huge difference between a Mosque as a place of worship and a memorial glorifying the terrorists.

Would you ban for example the raising of an Orthodox Church near Srbrenica?

The identification of extremist Islam as the only form that represents Islam is exactly what the terrorists want. The more Muslims are treated as other or the enemy within, the more footsoldiers they are able to recruit (just as the IRA were able to do in the 1970's and 80's).
mr shifter

Slapshot 3 wrote:

Wasn't aware of that. I assume it's been there a while?? Doesn't change my opinion though, I don't think this new Mosque should be so close to Ground Zero
And just across the road from the Trade Center is the St Pauls Church/Chapel being the oldest in NYC at over 200 years with a crest that is based on the St George crest. (er the England Flag !)
Long before the money moved into the locality.
Slapshot 3

Mrs John Murphy wrote:
SS sorry but I have to disagree.


I sniff..hope that...sniff I'm mature ...sniff enough to handle that.....
Wink  Wink

Quote:

Would you say that there should be no Catholic Churches near the sites of IRA atrocities? or Protestant Churches near Loyalist atrocities?

Al Quaeda no more represents Islam than the IRA represents Catholicism, or the UDA represents Protestantism, or for that matter no more than evangelicals represent Christianity, or ultra-zionists represent Judaism.

There is a huge difference between a Mosque as a place of worship and a memorial glorifying the terrorists.

Would you ban for example the raising of an Orthodox Church near Srbrenica?

The identification of extremist Islam as the only form that represents Islam is exactly what the terrorists want. The more Muslims are treated as other or the enemy within, the more footsoldiers they are able to recruit (just as the IRA were able to do in the 1970's and 80's).


Fair enough, emotive subject however, 9/11 changed the world in a way we've never had to deal with before and the contuing fallout from it, Iraq, Afghanistan etc means that anything like the building of the Mosque stirs things that little bit more.

Possibly a narrow polarised view but it is my personal opinon that this is the wrong place and time to build a Mosque.

You're right about the foot soldier thing but I think the glorification of any part of 9/11 is wrong and that's the way it appears to me right now. I read a lot about the whole project last night and I haven't changed my view, maybe I'll find something that will.
Mrs John Murphy

As I say I don't see how a Mosque glorifies 9/11. We are in danger of elevating the site to the level of sacred, which in turn prevents any attempt at re-establishing normality. It's a Mosque not an homage to terrorism, its not a shrine to Bin Laden. Trying to yoke Bin Laden to Islam is IMO ultimately self-defeating.

Should we do the same with say Tavistock Square? Should the Islamic Studies Dept which is about 2 blocks away be moved away from it?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't think the world changed on 9/11, anymore so than the world changed when Truman launched his policy of containment which resulted in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Lets be honest, the bins disappeared from London Underground after the IRA found they were very useful for leaving bombs in.

IMO - a lot of the 'security' measure put in place are designed to make the security companies richer and do nothing to actually make us anymore secure.
Enchantress

Ultimately, whether in America or Britain, it is nothing but a way of terrorizing/intimidating the local population and stifling dissent all in the name of "security". It also is a great way to distract people from the massive problems that the government has created.

So instead of debating relevant issues such as why the governments are creating massive bailouts and welfare for multi-national companies and banks, along with funding imperialist wars.....rather we end up trapped in this endless media scapegoating of one group like immigrants or the trade center "mosque".

It isn't just media and government that resort to these tactics as earlier in this thread, smrauder did the very same thing...instead of admitting that the wars are imperalist or attempting to rationlize any of it, he immediately launched into ad hominem.
Biosphere

I work with Muslims, I play football with Muslims, I've gone on holiday with Muslims (although in fairness she wasn't a practising Muslim and complained about being woken by the call to prayer at 5am in the morning in Istanbul, whilst the Mrs and myself thought it was very interesting to experience Laughing), I've shared a house with a Muslim, etc., . . . They all lead pretty normal lives and apart from observing their faith aren't much different to me. Whenever I think about this story, I think of these people and think that they would be persecuted if they were prevented from practising their faith in the vicinity of the WTC. Many Muslims died in the WTC too.

The issue is obviously being spun by politicians in the US. I imagine for many the word mosque conjures up images of a large domed building surrounded by minarets. Then you look at the actual building and its like a typical Manhattan building, complete with the external fire escape ladders so commonly favoured by criminals fleeing the cops for the obligatory chase scene in police dramas. It's as American looking as the Stars and Stripes is. I've seen it described as a faith centre with a prayer room and that seems a far more appropriate description. Obviously less emotive though.

Looking to the future where's this all going to lead? The rebuilt towers will almost certainly include prayer rooms (if US building practice is anything like UK practice) so will Muslims be prevented from praying on the site of the WTC in the future? Will they be prevented from entering the Towers at all? Palin talks about "Hallowed" ground, invoking Christian terminology for political gain. Presumably the replacement for the WTC being situated in the heart of a major financial centre will be focussed on things trading, banking, broking, insuring and so on and Palin will then remind us about Jesus throwing a fit when he caught the money changers in his Dads house and will drive them out too as she defends the sites sanctity?

For the record I'm an atheist.
smarauder68

I think my thread has been hi-jacked by the ground zero/mosque debate....the original thread is about the US withdrawing from Iraq....funny how things digress.

Back to the original topic, I'm happy with Obama's resolve to withdraw in the face of opposition from his own military and the Iraqi military....I suspect that Iraqi General who says they're not ready to go it alone is on the Halliburton/KBR/Brown & Root/Blackwater payroll.

It's time for the Iraqis to take over.  We've been training their Army for 7 years...enuf is enuf!
berck

Biosphere wrote:

The issue is obviously being spun by politicians in the US.


Actually, its not. Many people are pretty spun up about this and are speaking out for or against. Sure the politicians are trying to take advantage of it, but it really is the people who are all spun up over it.
smarauder68

The Last Convoy headed into Iraq during the 7 year "Iraqi Freedom" mission has left Kuwait.  Hope they make it back in one piece...

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/94004/last-convoy
Biosphere

berck wrote:
Biosphere wrote:

The issue is obviously being spun by politicians in the US.


Actually, its not. Many people are pretty spun up about this and are speaking out for or against. Sure the politicians are trying to take advantage of it, but it really is the people who are all spun up over it.


Well, it's a small point in the scheme of things and I'll give Scott his thread back now, but is there a big difference?
cyclingtv

http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=26combat_vs_noncomabt_troops.jpg
Quote:
U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq is Fiction. A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Embedded corporate media rose to new heights of non-journalism as, on command, they conjured up an end to (America's) Iraq War based on nothing more than a change of nomenclature. Combat soldiers woke up one morning as "advise and assist" troops whose "bases" were magically transformed into "fortified compounds." Still, the U.S. empire has no intention of leaving Iraq - especially when there are so many available euphemisms for staying.

One thing is perfectly clear: the United States is an empire that has never voluntarily withdrawn from any of its bases or "fortified compounds." The Americans are playing word games. They will leave Iraq only when they are forced to do so.
smarauder68

cyclingtv wrote:
http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=26combat_vs_noncomabt_troops.jpg
Quote:
U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq is Fiction. A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Embedded corporate media rose to new heights of non-journalism as, on command, they conjured up an end to (America's) Iraq War based on nothing more than a change of nomenclature. Combat soldiers woke up one morning as "advise and assist" troops whose "bases" were magically transformed into "fortified compounds." Still, the U.S. empire has no intention of leaving Iraq - especially when there are so many available euphemisms for staying.

One thing is perfectly clear: the United States is an empire that has never voluntarily withdrawn from any of its bases or "fortified compounds." The Americans are playing word games. They will leave Iraq only when they are forced to do so.


I understand the writer's doubts but the fact is we went from 180,000 down to 50,000 in 12 months. I am working at the HQ's of the withdrawal efforts in Kuwait and believe me when I say to you, its happening. Barring some last gasp begging from the Iraqis, I don't see Obama going back on his campaign pledge. He sees this withdrawal as being too important an issue to mess with.  

I wouldn't be surprised if the covert forces(CIA, Blackwater types) try to stir up or exaggerate a civil war so they can stay in business. But I think Obama won't be swayed...this is too big an issue for him.
smarauder68

Battling PTSD...Doggie Style: http://www.dvidshub.net/video/94721/pet-helps-soldiers-smile

       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffee Lounge
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum