USA occupation of Iraq: When should it end? - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 04:40 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,673
                     
USA occupation of Iraq: When should it end?

The "war' against Iraq, per se, is over. The Iraqi has been totally defeated, and the government overthrown, replaced with puppets leaders loyal to the USA, at least nominally.

SO why do we have over 100,000 troops there?

Cynics would say that the American military is there to protect multi-national oil companies while they steal Iraq's oil. Come to think of it, almost any non-biased observer would reach the same conclusion. However, some things simply can't e admitted.

So...

Given that Iraq turns out to have never been a threat to the USA, and certainly is no threat now, isn't it about time my cousins American troops come back to America? The president and one of the vice presidents of Iraq (jalal Talabani and Tariq al-Hashimi specifically) have both asked for a time table on when the Americans would get out.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

If it is, when are we bringing our siblings and children and parents home?

If it's not, why is the Bsh administration lying to the American people? Not to the mention, the world?

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.

Last edited by Volcana; Jun 23rd, 2006 at 05:30 AM.
Volcana is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 10:01 AM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
controlfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 5,858
                     
They are probably being kept there because of Iran's ongoing uppitiness.
controlfreak is offline  
post #3 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 10:10 AM
Senior Member
 
azdaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Itävalta
Posts: 17,966
                     
i think the original plan was that the us troops stay in iraq for a long time, so they can bully other nations in the region from there. i'm not sure they have given up on that idea yet.
azdaja is offline  
post #4 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 10:24 AM
Senior Member
 
fifiricci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cymru
Posts: 8,570
                     
It should never have started and who knows when it will ever end?

And in relation to Volcana's last point, here's an interesting article from the UK Independent Newspaper today. If Bush is lying - will the American media ever have the guts to come out and say it?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1093512.ece

Veteran critic of White House turns on 'gullible' press pack

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

Published: 21 June 2006



For almost five decades, White House reporter Helen Thomas has been covering America's leaders with a healthy dose of scepticism and an endless string of pointed questions.

Along the way she has ruffled presidential feathers and, since becoming a columnist in 2003, she has made clear her views on some of those incumbents - including George W Bush who she has described as the "worst president in all of American history".

Now, 85-year-old Thomas has focused attention on her fellow reporters, accusing them of failing in their duties in the run-up to the Iraq war. "I ask myself every day why the media have become so complacent, complicit and gullible," she writes in Watchdogs of Democracy?, a book published this week. "It all comes down to the 9/11 terrorist attacks that led to fear among reporters of being considered 'unpatriotic' or 'unAmerican'."

Thomas, who has covered every president since John F Kennedy, said she believed the press corps had recently recovered some of its spine and, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, had been asking more searching questions. But she said when it really mattered - when, in her opinion, the media could have perhaps prevented the invasion of Iraq - the press failed to do its public service.

She said: "When this war was obviously coming on, for two years we heard 'Saddam Hussein and 9/11'. Every reporter, rather than challenging it and saying [the 9/11 hijackers] were not Iraqis they were Saudis ... The press rolled over and printed it when they knew we were going to war and it could have been challenged."

She added: "Reporters have a duty to follow the truth wherever it leads them, regardless of politics. But people do worry about their jobs."

Until 2003, Thomas sat at the front of presidential press conferences, though for three years Mr Bush failed to call on her. In March, he asked her for a question and she said: "Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war?"

The President would only say he did not accept the premise of her question.

Critics have long highlighted the failure of much of the media to thoroughly challenge the claims of the US and British governments in the run-up to the invasion. The New York Times has been one of the few to examine its own performance.

In a "mea culpa" it wrote: "We have found a number of instances of coverage that were not as rigorous as they should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims."

Other reporters have highlighted how, in the aftermath of 9/11, the media was less probing, at a time when the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was warning all Americans "need to watch what they say". In 2002, Dan Rather, an anchor with CBS news, said: "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions."


For almost five decades, White House reporter Helen Thomas has been covering America's leaders with a healthy dose of scepticism and an endless string of pointed questions.

Along the way she has ruffled presidential feathers and, since becoming a columnist in 2003, she has made clear her views on some of those incumbents - including George W Bush who she has described as the "worst president in all of American history".

Now, 85-year-old Thomas has focused attention on her fellow reporters, accusing them of failing in their duties in the run-up to the Iraq war. "I ask myself every day why the media have become so complacent, complicit and gullible," she writes in Watchdogs of Democracy?, a book published this week. "It all comes down to the 9/11 terrorist attacks that led to fear among reporters of being considered 'unpatriotic' or 'unAmerican'."

Thomas, who has covered every president since John F Kennedy, said she believed the press corps had recently recovered some of its spine and, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, had been asking more searching questions. But she said when it really mattered - when, in her opinion, the media could have perhaps prevented the invasion of Iraq - the press failed to do its public service.

She said: "When this war was obviously coming on, for two years we heard 'Saddam Hussein and 9/11'. Every reporter, rather than challenging it and saying [the 9/11 hijackers] were not Iraqis they were Saudis ... The press rolled over and printed it when they knew we were going to war and it could have been challenged."


She added: "Reporters have a duty to follow the truth wherever it leads them, regardless of politics. But people do worry about their jobs."

Until 2003, Thomas sat at the front of presidential press conferences, though for three years Mr Bush failed to call on her. In March, he asked her for a question and she said: "Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war?"

The President would only say he did not accept the premise of her question.

Critics have long highlighted the failure of much of the media to thoroughly challenge the claims of the US and British governments in the run-up to the invasion. The New York Times has been one of the few to examine its own performance.

In a "mea culpa" it wrote: "We have found a number of instances of coverage that were not as rigorous as they should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims."

Other reporters have highlighted how, in the aftermath of 9/11, the media was less probing, at a time when the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was warning all Americans "need to watch what they say". In 2002, Dan Rather, an anchor with CBS news, said: "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions."




Patiently waiting to join the silver surfers
fifiricci is offline  
post #5 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 12:24 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
wta_zuperfann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,575
                     
more on the immorality of Bush's war

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0606g.asp

www fff.org

Killing Iraqi Children
by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 19, 2006

In a short editorial, the Detroit News asked an interesting question:

“Some war critics are suggesting Iraq terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi should have been arrested and prosecuted rather than bombed into oblivion. Why expose American troops to the danger of an arrest, when bombs work so well?”

Here’s one possible answer: In order not to send a five-year-old Iraqi girl into oblivion with the same 500-pound bombs that sent al-Zarqawi into oblivion.

Of course, I don’t know whether the Detroit News editorial board, if pressed, would say that the death of that little Iraqi girl was “worth it.” Maybe the board wasn’t even aware that that little girl had been killed by the bombs that killed Zarqawi when it published its editorial. But I do know one thing: killing Iraqi children and other such “collateral damage” has long been acceptable and even “worth it” to U.S. officials as part of their long-time foreign policy toward Iraq.

This U.S. government mindset was expressed perfectly by former U.S. official Madeleine Albright when she stated that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the U.S. and UN sanctions against Iraq had, in fact, been “worth it.” By “it” she was referring to the U.S. attempt to oust Saddam Hussein from power through the use of the sanctions. Even though that attempt did not succeed, U.S. officials still felt that the deaths of the Iraqi children had been worth trying to get rid of Saddam.

It’s no different with respect to President Bush’s war on Iraq and the resulting occupation, which has killed or maimed tens of thousands of Iraqi people, including countless children. (The Pentagon has long had a policy of not keeping count of the number of Iraqi people, including children, it kills.) In the minds of U.S. officials, the deaths and maiming of all those Iraqi people, including the children, while perhaps unfortunate “collateral damage,” have, in fact, been worth it.

That’s why U.S. officials gave nary a thought to the death of that five-year-old girl who was bombed into oblivion with the bomb that did the same to Zarqawi. The child’s death was “worth it” because the bomb also killed a terrorist, which U.S. officials believe, brings the Middle East another step closer to peace and freedom.


Wars of aggression versus defensive wars

Some would argue that such “collateral damage” is just an unfortunate byproduct of war. War is brutal. People get killed in war. Compared with the two world wars, not that many people have been killed in Iraq, proponents of the Iraq war and occupation would claim.

Such claims, however, miss an important point: U.S. military forces have no right, legal or moral, even to be in Iraq killing anyone. Why? Because neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States. The Iraqi people had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington. Thus, this was an optional war against Iraq, one that President Bush and his military forces did not have to wage.

The attack on Iraq was akin to, say, attacking Bolivia or Uruguay or Mongolia, after 9/11. Those countries also had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and so it would have been illegal and immoral for President Bush to have ordered an invasion and occupation of those countries as well. To belabor the obvious, the fact that some people attacked the United States on 9/11 didn’t give the United States the right to attack countries that didn’t have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

That made the United States the aggressor nation and Iraq the defending nation in this conflict. That incontrovertible fact holds deep moral implications, as well as legal ones, for U.S. soldiers who kill people in Iraq, including people who are simply trying to oust the occupiers from Iraq. Don’t forget that aggressive war was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg.

Suppose an armed robber enters a person’s home and the owner’s neighbor comes over to help him. The homeowner and his neighbor fire at the robber who fires back, killing both the homeowner and his neighbor.

Can the robber claim self-defense? No, because he had no right to be in the home in the first place. The intruder is guilty of murder, both morally and legally, because he doesn’t have the right to be where he is when he shoots the homeowner and his friend.

The situation is no different in Iraq because U.S. soldiers don’t have any right to be there. “But they were ordered to invade Iraq by their commander in chief.” They could have refused to obey orders to deploy to Iraq, just as Lt. Ehren Watada has done. Watada refused to loyally obey the orders of his commander in chief. Instead, he chose to obey his conscience and also to fulfill the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution.

Many Americans have a difficult time processing this because they simply want to block out of their minds that their own federal government — the paternalistic government that takes care of them with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and education and protects them from drug dealers, immigrants, terrorists, and big oil — would ever do anything gravely wrong.

Let’s put the situation this way. Suppose a coalition of Muslim countries successfully invaded the United States to overthrow the Bush regime and that foreign troops were now occupying the country and supervising new elections. Suppose some Americans began violently resisting the occupation and that British citizens came over to help them. While there undoubtedly would be some Americans supporting the foreign occupation of America and cooperating with it, my hunch is that most Americans would support the resistance.

Or put it this way: Suppose it was the Soviet Union that had done everything to Iraq that the U.S. government has done: imposed brutal sanctions that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, invaded Iraq, and then had Soviet troops occupying the country while organizing elections, killing insurgents and resisters, censoring the press, confiscating guns, conducting warrantless searches, detaining people without trials, and torturing and sexually abusing detainees.

Is there any doubt that a large segment of the American people, especially conservatives and neo-conservatives, would be railing like banshees against the Soviet communist forces in Iraq?

War versus occupation

Moreover, what people often forget is that the United States is no longer at war in Iraq. This is an occupation, not a war. The war ended when Saddam Hussein’s government fell. At that point, U.S. forces could have exited the country. (Or they could have exited the country when it became obvious that Saddam’s infamous WMDs were nonexistent.) Instead, the president opted to have the troops remain in Iraq to “rebuild” the country and to establish “democracy,” and the troops opted to obey his orders to do so. Occupying Iraq, like invading Iraq, was an optional course of action.

As an occupation force serving a sovereign regime, U.S. forces are not engaged in a war but instead are simply serving as a domestic police force for the sovereign Iraqi regime. The problem, however, is that they’ve been trained as soldiers, not policemen.

The military mindset is totally different from the police mindset. Assume that there is a suspected terrorist hiding among 10 innocent people. How would the military and the police deal with that situation?

The military would not chance the suspected terrorist’s escaping or his killing a soldier in a gun battle. As we have seen in the al-Zarqawi killing, the military would simply drop a bomb on the suspect, even knowing that the innocent people around him would also be killed. In the mind of the military, the “collateral damage” would be worth it, even if it included children.

This military mindset was put on display a few years ago by a CIA paramilitary operation in Yemen. Convinced that an automobile in Yemen was being driven by an al-Qaeda terrorist, the CIA fired a missile into the car, killing all six people in the car, including an American citizen. As the Detroit News would ask, why bother with trying to capture the suspects and then go through all the hassles associated with extradition and trial when one missile can do the trick? And how exactly do we know that everyone in the car was guilty of terrorism and deserving of the death penalty? Because the CIA (which claimed that there were WMDs in Iraq) said so.

Consider another real-world example. A few years ago, the Washington, D.C., area was terrorized by two gunmen who were sporadically shooting and killing people at random. The police were having a very difficult time capturing them. One day, someone spotted the suspected snipers parked at a highway roadside park where lots of other cars were parked.

Taking the chance that the suspected snipers could escape to kill again, the cops slowly surrounded the roadside park. They then approached the car and took both of the suspects into custody, after which they were tried and convicted.

What would have been the military response? Drop a couple of 500-pound bombs on them, just as they did with the terrorist Zarqawi. After all, in the words of the Detroit News, why take the chance that the suspects could escape and kill even more people? So what if the bystanders, including children, would be also killed in the process? That collateral damage would be worth it because the suspects would very likely have gone on to kill more people than the bombs did. Of course, the dead would include American children, rather than Iraqi children, but certainly that wouldn’t be an important distinction to the Pentagon, or would it?

That raises another distinction between the military and the police. It’s not difficult to see that the military holds the Bill of Rights in contempt, which is precisely why the Pentagon established its torture and sex abuse camps in Cuba and former Soviet-bloc countries — so as to avoid the constraints of the U.S. Constitution and any interference by our country’s federal judiciary.

It is not a coincidence that in the Pentagon’s three-year effort to “rebuild” Iraq it has done nothing to construct a judicial system that would have independent judges issuing search and arrest warrants or that would protect due process, habeas corpus, jury trials, and the right to counsel. To the military, all that is anathema, not only because it would presumably enable lots of guilty people to go free but also because it might inhibit the ability of the military to take out people without having to go through all those legal and technical niceties.

Several months ago, a U.S. attorney told a federal court of appeals that the United States is as much a battleground in the war on terrorism as other countries in the world, including Iraq. Heaven forbid that the American people ever permit the U.S. military to expand to the United States the war-on-terrorism tactics it has employed overseas.

More important, all too many Americans have yet to confront the moral implications of invading and occupying Iraq. U.S. officials continue to exhort the American people to judge the war and occupation on whether it proves to be “successful” in establishing “stability” and “democracy” in Iraq. If so, the idea will be that the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, including countless Iraqi children, will have been worth it. It would be difficult to find a more morally repugnant position than that.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.



Abraham Lincoln
wta_zuperfann is offline  
post #6 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Scotso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 47,044
                     
People don't seem to understand that the US leaving Iraq now would create a power vaccuum. At best, a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein would come to power... at worst they would have years and years of bloody civil war. I was against the invasion, but now that we're there we need to stay until Iraq has a viable government that can maintain control after we leave.
Scotso is offline  
post #7 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 01:41 PM
Senior Member
 
fifiricci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cymru
Posts: 8,570
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelissaTorresFan
People don't seem to understand that the US leaving Iraq now would create a power vaccuum. At best, a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein would come to power... at worst they would have years and years of bloody civil war. I was against the invasion, but now that we're there we need to stay until Iraq has a viable government that can maintain control after we leave.
And what do you do when that just is not possible? The US will be there for years to come if it thinks that a presence in the ME will avoid civil war

Some countries just aren't suited to democracy you know and there are sometimes very good reasons why they have tyrannies, distasteful as countries like ours sometimes find them.

Patiently waiting to join the silver surfers
fifiricci is offline  
post #8 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 01:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,353
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
The "war' against Iraq, per se, is over. The Iraqi has been totally defeated, and the government overthrown, replaced with puppets leaders loyal to the USA, at least nominally.

SO why do we have over 100,000 troops there?

Cynics would say that the American military is there to protect multi-national oil companies while they steal Iraq's oil. Come to think of it, almost any non-biased observer would reach the same conclusion. However, some things simply can't e admitted.

So...

Given that Iraq turns out to have never been a threat to the USA, and certainly is no threat now, isn't it about time my cousins American troops come back to America? The prime minister and deputy pime minister of Iraq have both asked for a time table on when the Americans would get out.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

If it is, when are we bringing our siblings and children and parents home?

If it's not, why is the Bsh administration lying to the American people? Not to the mention, the world?
why are you sooooo concerned about Iraq? Is it the most important country in the world. How about Sudan where arab militias are exterminating the people or Congo which has seem around 3 million people die as a result form a 4 year old conflict.

So Iraq was no threat. I suppose the Gulf war was just a recreation thing for you. I much prefer iraq now then under Saddam. The shiites have a right to power as do the Kurds in their now autonomous region. They will eventually get Kirkurk back. So dream on about your Sunni arab nostalgia.
Lord Nelson is offline  
post #9 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 03:09 PM
The Comeback Begins - January 2010.
 
ZeroSOFInfinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,481
                     
When should the occupation of Iraq end? Beats me... why don't you ask Bush and his cronies?

Your sig picture exceeds the 200 pixel height limit.

Australian Open 2010 Final Result:-
Lost to Serena Williams 4-6, 6-3, 2-6 (Great job, girl! Now prepare for FO!)
ZeroSOFInfinity is offline  
post #10 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 03:19 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
PointBlank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Nine-Oh-One.
Posts: 16,154
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifiricci
And what do you do when that just is not possible? The US will be there for years to come if it thinks that a presence in the ME will avoid civil war

Some countries just aren't suited to democracy you know and there are sometimes very good reasons why they have tyrannies, distasteful as countries like ours sometimes find them.
Well why shouldnt they stay there for years if thats what it will take to avoid a civil war? .

And stop being an asshole. He said he didnt agree with the war, so no reason to through your anti-USA comments out there. Most this country disagrees with the war, but we cant really walk up to Bush and tell him to stop and it will be done. Not so easy. Also, we really just care now about the soilders. Its very possible to not support the war but support the troops.

fuck.
PointBlank is offline  
post #11 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 03:27 PM
Senior Member
 
VeeDaQueen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3,588
                     
When the Iraqi's are able to defend themselves. It takes time, and I think people are just to impatient. I know people want their families to come home, but you shouldn't sign up to join the military if you didn't want to take the responsibilty that war is always a possibilty. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Iraq won't be either. I guess this generation isn't used to wars and after-war effects taking a considerable amount of time, considering the Persian Gulf war took less than a year. I don't understand why people are expecting this to be over quickly. You can't just rebuild a government and it's military in three years. It's just not possible.
VeeDaQueen is offline  
post #12 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 03:36 PM
Senior Member
 
azdaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Itävalta
Posts: 17,966
                     
there already is a civil war in iraq and the whole mess was created and is probably exacerbated by the presence of the us troops. besides, such arguments were used during the vietnam war as well.

when the soviets pulled out of afghanistan a power vacuum was indeed created and the taliban were able to fill it in. i still think it's good that soviets pulled out because they had no business being there in the first place. once the americans leave we can wonder what can we do to support the development of a better society in iraq. but they need to leave the country first because they are not wanted there.
azdaja is offline  
post #13 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 04:03 PM
Senior Member
 
VeeDaQueen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3,588
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by azdaja
but they need to leave the country first because they are not wanted there.
of course they aren't wanted there.... the terrorists don't want them there
VeeDaQueen is offline  
post #14 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 04:13 PM
Senior Member
 
azdaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Itävalta
Posts: 17,966
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDaQueen
of course they aren't wanted there.... the terrorists don't want them there
the iraqi people don't want them there, but a lot of delusional americans will never understand that so there's no point in discussing that with them.

there are also people who dislike america (some of the terrorists, for example) and they actually want the americans to stay in iraq longer because it's hurting the american power in the same way that the afghanistan war hurt the soviet power.
azdaja is offline  
post #15 of 113 (permalink) Old Jun 21st, 2006, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 6,145
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDaQueen
When the Iraqi's are able to defend themselves. It takes time, and I think people are just to impatient. I know people want their families to come home, but you shouldn't sign up to join the military if you didn't want to take the responsibilty that war is always a possibilty.
Point taken, but when you do sign up for the military, you have the right to expect your government to only go to war when ABSOLUTELY neccessary. You do NOT expect to go to war on totally false pretences!! (WOMD's!!!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDaQueen
Rome wasn't built in a day, and Iraq won't be either. I guess this generation isn't used to wars and after-war effects taking a considerable amount of time, considering the Persian Gulf war took less than a year. I don't understand why people are expecting this to be over quickly. You can't just rebuild a government and it's military in three years. It's just not possible.
Maybe people expect it to be over because Bush proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished' a couple of months after it started LOL.
Philbo is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome