Sunday, February 25, 2007

Stop gap post for the dial-uppers!

Please Continue!


capt said...

" It is extremely dangerous to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting to make democracy safe in the world.....

These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United Sates. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.....

Every solitary one of these aristocratic conspirators and would-be murderers claims to be an arch-patriot; every one of them insists that the war is being waged to make the world safe for democracy. What humbug! What rot! What false pretense! These autocrats, these tyrants, these red- handed robbers and murderers, the "patriots," while the men who have the courage to stand face to face with them, speak the truth, and fight for their exploited victims-they are the disloyalists and traitors. If this be true, I want to take my place side by side with the traitors in this fight.

Eugene V. Debs - The Canton, Ohio, Anti-War Speech. June 16, 1918

Many people today don't want honest answers insofar as honest means unpleasant or disturbing, They want a soft answer that turneth away anxiety." Louis Kronenberger - (1904-1980)

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.": Niccolo Machiavelli - (1469-1527) Italian Statesman and Political Philosopher - Source: Discourses, 1513-1517


Thanks ICH Newsletter!

capt said...


Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

by SEYMOUR M. HERSH (New Yorker)


In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The "redirection," as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that "realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region."


*****end of clip*****

Hersh is always a good read.


capt said...

Rumsfeld's Missile Bungle

Here's a fantasy. Imagine three military services agreed on the need for a versatile air-to-ground missile that could precisely destroy a wide range of elusive targets -- everything from camouflaged armored vehicles to terrorist speedboats. Imagine they found a low-cost design that could do those things day or night, good weather or bad, even when enemies were trying to jam the missile.

Imagine the services selected a company that developed the missile on time and on cost, meeting all of its performance objectives.

And imagine the missile was fielded expeditiously, replacing four cold-war missiles with an easy-to-maintain round that saved military lives while minimizing unintended damage.


capt said...

'Exodus' of Iraq's ancient minorities

Iraq's minorities, some of the oldest communities in the world, are being driven from the country by a wave of violence against them because they are identified with the occupation and easy targets for kidnappers and death squads. A "huge exodus" is now taking place, according to a report by Minority Rights Group International.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees says 30 per cent of the 1.8 million Iraqis who have fled to Jordan, Syria and elsewhere come from the minorities.

The Christians, who have lived in Iraq for 2,000 years, survived the Muslim invasion in the 7th century and the Mongol onslaught in the 13th but are now being eradicated as their churches are bombed and members of their faith hunted down and killed along with other minority faiths.


*****end of clip*****

All for the vainglorious Bunnypants.


Anonymous said...

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Al Gore and his team wins for "An Inconvenient Truth."

As he said, it is not a political issue, it is a MORAL issue.

Onward! Progress!

Robert S said...

Let me paint a picture for ya...

I'm just relaxing, listening to Michelle Shocked on the CD player, just so's it happen's random like, at the same time I got the Academy Awards thingy happenin' on the TV not so's I'm listenin' and so random it coulda' been another song offa' a different CD but there's a picture of Al Gore gettin' the award and the song lyric is "too little to late" simultaniously....

Saladin said...

Too bad Mr. Gore doesn't feel this "moral" issue applies to him. But then, he's SO honest as long as you don't dig too deep.

Anonymous said...


WASHINGTON (AP) --A juror was dismissed from the trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Monday after court officials learned she had been exposed to information about the case over the weekend.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered the juror removed, saying "what she had exposure to obviously disqualifies her." The judge declined to say what information the juror had seen.

Walton said the remaining jurors had not been tainted. He said he would allow deliberations to continue with 11 jurors rather than calling on one of two alternate jurors.

"They should continue with their deliberations and I will emphasize again the importance of not having contact with any outside information," Walton said.

Attorneys and the judge began questioning each juror Monday after one juror apparently saw or read something about the case over the weekend.

Walton had ordered jurors to avoid contact with media coverage of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's monthlong trial. He said Monday that one juror was exposed to information about the trial over the weekend.

Jurors occasionally saw some news coverage during the monthlong trial. Unlike those incidents, Walton said Monday that he worried that the information may have been passed to several jurors. He said each juror would be questioned behind closed doors.

The decision came as jurors began their fourth day of deliberations in the case and raised the possibility of a mistrial if jurors had been prejudiced in the highly publicized and politically charged case.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Anonymous said...

I am grateful to Al Gore for his important role in helping to shift public opinion on the issue of global warming.

He appears to have taken on the task with conviction, commitment, intelligence, diligence -- and by taking a non-political, moral position on the matter.

Thanks, Al.

Anonymous said...

Why do some people act as moral arbiters on the actions of others?

Saladin said...

Why do some people insist on brushing off the facts so their personal agenda can remain intact? Fuck the message, bash the messenger, par for the course.

Anonymous said...

The will to act -- a renewable resource.

Thank goodness.

Robert S said...

Gore's Other Global Warning: Iraq War
By Robert Parry
Consortium News
Sunday 25 February 2007

As Al Gore steps into the national spotlight because of the Academy Awards and his global-warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," it's worth remembering that in fall 2002 Gore sought to warn the American people about another "inconvenient truth," the folly of invading Iraq.

The former Vice President did so at a time when it was considered madness or almost treason to object to George W. Bush's war plans. But Gore was one of a small number of national political figures who took that risk and paid a price, subjected to widespread ridicule and disdain from the Washington news media.

On Sept, 23, 2002, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Gore laid out a series of concerns and differences that he had with Bush's policy of "preemptive war" and specifically Bush's decision to refashion the "war on terror" into an imminent invasion of Iraq.

Gore, who had supported the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, criticized Bush's failure to enlist the international community as his father had. Gore also warned about the negative impact that alienating other nations was having on the broader war against terrorists.

"I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century," Gore said. "To put first things first, I believe that we ought to be focusing our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on Sept. 11....

"Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism."

Instead of keeping after al-Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, Bush had chosen to start a new war against Iraq as the first example of his policy of preemption, Gore said.

"He is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein," Gore said. "And the President is proclaiming a new uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat."

Gore also objected to the timing of the vote on war with Iraq.

"President Bush is demanding, in this high political season, that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and, for that matter, under the language of his resolution, against any other nation in the region regardless of subsequent developments or emerging circumstances," Gore said.

The former Vice President staked out a position with subtle but important differences from Bush's broad assertion that the United States has the right to override international law on the President's command. Gore argued that U.S. unilateral power should be used sparingly, only in extreme situations.

"There's no international law that can prevent the United States from taking action to protect our vital interests when it is manifestly clear that there's a choice to be made between law and our survival," Gore said. "Indeed, international law itself recognizes that such choices stay within the purview of all nations. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."

Lost Good Will

Gore bemoaned, too, that Bush's actions had dissipated the international good will that surrounded the United States after the 9/11 attacks.

"That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do," Gore said. "Now, my point is not that they're right to feel that way, but that they do feel that way."

Gore also took aim at Bush's unilateral assertion of his right to imprison American citizens without trial or legal representation simply by labeling them "enemy combatants."

"The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedy, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the President of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale and un-American, and ought to be stopped," Gore said.

Gore raised, too, practical concerns about the dangers that might follow the overthrow of Hussein, if chaos in Iraq followed. Gore cited the deteriorating political condition in Afghanistan where the new central government exerted real control only in parts of Kabul while ceding effective power to warlords in the countryside.

"What if, in the aftermath of a war against Iraq, we faced a situation like that, because we've washed our hands of it?" Gore asked. "What if the al-Qaeda members infiltrated across the borders of Iraq the way they are in Afghanistan? ...

"Now, I just think that if we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could very well be much worse off than we are today."

Angry Bush Backers

While it may have been understandable why Bush's supporters would be upset over Gore's address - radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said he was unable to get to sleep after listening to it - their subsequent reaction was more attuned to obscuring Gore's arguments than addressing what he actually said.

Rather than welcome a vigorous debate on the merits and shortcomings of the so-called "Bush Doctrine," right-wing and mainstream commentators treated Gore as dishonest, unpatriotic and even unhinged. Gore was slapped around by Beltway political analysts, hit from all angles, variously portrayed as seeking cheap political gain and committing political suicide.

Helped by the fact that Gore's speech received spotty television coverage - MSNBC carried excerpts live and C-SPAN replayed the speech later that night - pro-Bush commentators were free to distort Gore's words and then dismiss his arguments as "lies" largely because few Americans actually heard what he had said.

Some epithets came directly from Bush partisans. Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke called Gore a "political hack."

An administration source told The Washington Post that Gore was simply "irrelevant," a theme that would be repeated often in the days after Gore's speech. [Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2002]

Other barrages came from right-wing opinion-makers from leading editorial pages, on talk radio and on television chat shows.

"Gore's speech was one no decent politician could have delivered," wrote Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly. "It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts - bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible." [Washington Post, Sept. 25, 2002]

"A pudding with no theme but much poison," declared another Post columnist, Charles Krauthammer. "It was a disgrace - a series of cheap shots strung together without logic or coherence." [Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2002]

At, Andrew Sullivan entitled his piece about Gore's speech "The Opportunist" and characterized Gore as "bitter."

While some depicted Gore's motivation as political "opportunism," columnist William Bennett mocked Gore for sealing his political doom and banishing himself "from the mainstream of public opinion."

In an Op-Ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, entitled "Al Gore's Political Suicide," Bennett said Gore had "made himself irrelevant by his inconsistency" and had engaged in "an act of self-immolation" by daring to criticize Bush's policy. "Now we have reason to be grateful once again that Al Gore is not the man in the White House, and never will be," Bennett wrote. [Wall Street Journal, Sept. 26, 2002]

Lyin' Al

When the conservative pundits addressed Gore's actual speech, his words were bizarrely parsed or selectively edited to allow reprising of the news media's favorite "Lyin' Al" canard from the presidential campaign.

Kelly, for instance, resumed his editorial harangue with the argument that Gore was lying when the former Vice President said "the vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized."

To Kelly, this comment was "reprehensible" and "a lie." Kelly continued, "The men who 'implemented' the 'cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans' are dead; they died in the act of murder on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up."

Kelly added that most of the rest were in prison or on the run. Yet, Kelly's remarks were obtuse even by his standards. Gore clearly was talking about the likes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, who indeed had not been located or captured - and still remain at large.

Plus, the Bush administration itself had expressed frustration at the failure of Afghan and Pakistani forces to cut off escape routes for al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders during the military offensive at Tora Bora in December 2001.

But when Gore made similar points, he was dismissed as a liar. That then opened the door for smirking TV pundits to reprise other bogus examples of Gore's "lies," including the invented quote about Gore supposedly saying he "invented the Internet."

Still, the underlying theme running through the attacks against Gore and other critics of Bush's "preemptive war" policy was that a thorough debate would not be tolerated. Rather than confront arguments on their merits, Bush's supporters simply drummed Gore and fellow skeptics out of Washington's respectable political society.

More than four years later, Gore's Iraq War warnings sound both prescient and obvious. What might be more remarkable is how few major political figures dared to speak out, as Gore did, when their cautionary advice might have saved many thousands of lives and spared the United States possibly the worst national security disaster in its history.


Al Gore is certainly not perfect, he is a politician, after all, and what politician hasn't compromised some principles along the way, made unfortunate comments, questionable alliances, whatever.

Compared to other politicians, on the other hand...

David B. Benson said...

Anthropogenic Global Warming --- Remember, you read it here first...

Saladin said...

Robert, it is true, politicians are forced to make compromises along the way, it's unavoidable, but Mr. Gore has gone way beyond that. He has made the environment a major platform, while behind the scenes he has betrayed his own base, in huge ways, over and over again. How can he expect to progress with his cause when his record on environmental decision making is a disgrace? Compromise is one thing, outright caving in to the very entities he has declared the mortal enemies of planet Earth is something else entirely. Many of his most vocal critics are from the progressive left, I have read dozens of articles condemning his backstabbing of the green movement since the clinton years, these people have pretty high standards that they expect a big talking environmentalist like gore to uphold. They want more then someone who talks the talk, if he doesn't walk the walk he is more a detriment than a help. When you have high profile people like Joshua Frank, Ralph Nader and Jim Hightower calling him on his record, you know something is really wrong. As for his Iraq war rhetoric, that is another case of saying and doing two different things.

Saladin said...

Is this what is considered a compromise?

How The Kyoto Protocol Was Gored

By Joshua Frank

17 July, 2006

Seems as if Al Gore's part-documentary part-campaign flick is reaching quite a few people this summer. Environmentalists and skeptics alike. Perhaps the ol’ VP is repenting for some of the dirty deeds he supported during his compliant years in Washington.

One of the more egregious of Gore’s follies while serving his country came about in the late 1990s when the Clinton administration was debating whether or not to back the largest international environmental pact in history, the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Gore, the big “enviro”, despite common belief, was the one most responsible for Clinton’s derailment of the landmark accord.

Seems contradictory, I know. Here’s the most popular environmentalist speaking out about the fact the Earth is rapidly warming, indeed pointing out that humans are at least partially to blame, yet when he had the power to do something significant at the governmental level, he refused to act. In fact Gore’s culpability in enviro degradation goes well beyond his family’s past ownership in Occidental Petroleum, where they owned over a quarter of a million dollars in the company while Gore sought the presidency in 2000.

It was the winter of 1997 when Vice President Gore, who was in direct control of Clinton’s environmental policies, flew to Japan to address the international delegation about the US’s position on the Kyoto Protocol. Gore and Clinton had just come off an election victory and it was time to pay back the big oil and gas companies who had handed over $6 million to their party the year prior.

Gore warmed up his attentive audience by affirming that Clinton and the US public believed the Earth was in peril and that all global citizens must act swiftly to save it. But in typical Gore doublespeak, he declared the United States would not support the agreement because it did not ask enough of developing nations, even though the US is the leading polluter in the world.

As Gore put it then, "Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding only with the advice and consent of the US Senate.”

Gore soon returned to Washington only to reiterate his message that the Clinton administration would not put the Kyoto Protocol before the Senate. "As we have said before, we will not submit the Protocol for ratification without the meaningful participation of key developing countries in efforts to address climate change,” he said.

It was at that moment when Clinton and Gore ruined any chances of the Kyoto Protocol being honestly debated in Washington. Later in November of 1998 Gore "symbolically" signed the accord, likely to appease his environmental pals like the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, a close friend of Al’s.

But the Vice President’s tepid gesture couldn't have carried less weight. The Clinton administration, with Gore's guidance, refused to allow the Republican controlled Senate to decide on the Kyoto Protocol for themselves. Gore advised Clinton not to send the Protocol to the Senate to be ratified. The blame could have burdened the Republican Party, not the Democrats and the Clinton administration. But instead the buck stopped with Al Gore and Bill Clinton. Predictably, President Bush followed their lead.

And there you have it. It was Mr. Global Warming himself who first tried to kill off the Kyoto Protocol.
Now, completely disregard any personal enmity you may feel towards Mr. Frank, instead focus on the message, is it true or not?

Gerald said...

First, let me start by saying I really love Nazi America because we are a transparent empire with hypocrisy being rampant.

Secondly, more Americans are added to the rolls of poverty. Middle class will soon be at the poverty level.

Thirdly, there will be more pain and suffering. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Fourthly, George Hitler is funding the jihadists terrorists in Iran to create unrest. Shades of Iran-Contra! Yet, we complain about Iran helping Iraq. Hypocrisy!!! Nazi Israel's cluster bombs continuing to kill Lebanese!!! These cluster bombs are given to Nazi Israel by Nazi America. Cluster bombs continue to kill Vietnamese that were laid by Nazi America in the 1960s and 1970s. I love Nazi America for her transparent hypocrisy.

As a reminder, remember the Nazis' propaganda about Nazi America being good, holy, and saintly? Everytime I hear how saintly we are I want to puke. Nazi America is an evil empire!!!!!

Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

First, let me note that the combined gravitational fields of two dozen assorted collapsars (aka black holes)would not suck half as much as Blogger does for making me retype this. :(

Over on, Justin Raimondo has posted an article called "America's alliance with bin Laden". It seems the geniuses who are running our country [off a cliff] now think it's a neat idea to use our tax dollars to subsidize Sunni radical groups in Lebanon, ideologically tied to al-Qaida, against Shi'ite Hizbullah.


Flying H. Spaghetti Monster, just when you thought our foreign policy could not get ANY MORE STUPID...Every moron who voted for Bush/Cheney should be disenfranchised, were that possible, and the Corporate McMedia that helped to enable those murdering bastards to be "elected" must be destroyed, by zealous use of the anti-trust laws and by a restored [and expanded as needed] Fairness Doctrine. Selah.

From the swamps of Arkansas, Ivory Bill Woodpecker

Gerald said...

Al Gore is my candidate for president but he will choose not to run.

I am glad Al won the Oscar. At least the votes were counted without the chads, Florida fraud, and interference from our Nazi Supreme Court. I hope that he will bring home a Nobel Peace Prize. My hope is that Nazi America will wake up and realize what the world has realized for years that George Hitler is a murderer and a war criminal. George Hitler spreads death and destruction and not democracy. George Hitler has a narcissitic personality that eventual self-destructs. Narcissism is self-destructive. It would okay if he was destroying himself but why destroy plant Earth as well???

Gerald said...

Praying Each Day: February 26

Gerald said...

Serenity Prayer

Gerald said...

If we want to be truly alive, we must let go and let God enter into our hearts so that we can become people who reveal to all persons love and mercy.

Let Go, Let God

David B. Benson said...

Juan Cole manages to get the science a bit wrong, but his message regarding Global Warming, Big Oil and War comes through clearly...

Anonymous said...

Roundup of Violence in Iraq - Feb. 26, 2007
By Laith Hammoudi
McClatchy Newspapers

The Iraq violence report is compiled by McClatchy Newspapers in Baghdad from police, military and medical reports. This is not a comprehensive list of all violence in Iraq, much of which goes unreported. It’s posted without editing as transmitted to McClatchy’s Washington Bureau.


The source: the MOI operation room

-- Two policemen were killed and a third one was injured in an IED explosion that targeted their patrol in Rustomiya neighborhood south Baghdad at 8:30 a.m.

-- Two civilians were killed and four were wounded when a mortar shell fell in Al Nidhal St. downtown Baghdad at 10:00

-- At 11:00 am, insurgents attacked today a center of civil defense unit in Al Mansour neighborhood in western Baghdad. the insurgents used machineguns and grenades in their attack. The attack claimed the lives of three policemen in the center wounding another three of them.

-- The Iraqi vice president Adil Abdul Mahdi (the Shiite vice from SCIRI) survived today an assassination attempt targeted him while he was inside the building of the labors and municipalities in Al Mansour neighborhood in western Baghdad. The explosion which was implemented by an IED took place near the door of the meeting room where Abdul Mahdi was meeting with the minister of municipalities Reyadh Ghareeb. The explosion happened at 11:30 am, claiming the lives of 5 civilians, four of them are directors, a general director, three women directors, the director of accounting, the director of auditing and a director a department in addition to an employee. 31 others were injured. A statement by the presidency council issued after the incident confirmed that Adil Abdul Mahdi was injured lightly and he returned to work.

-- 18 anonymous bodies were found today in baghdad. 15 bodies were found in Karkh, the western part of Baghdad, in the following neighborhoods: 3 bodies in Hurriya, 2 bodies each in Baiyaa, Saidiya and Hay Al Amil. One body was found in each of Abo Disheer, Mansour, Kadhimiya, Dora, Al Shorta Al Rabi’aa and Salhiya. Three bodies were found in Rosafa, the eastern part of Baghdad, one body each in of Ubaidi neighborhood, Al Ameen, and near Al Sinak bridge.

Diyala province

-- A military source in the 5th Iraqi army division revealed last night late that 20 insurgents were killed and 9 IEDs were defused during the first day of the military operation in Al Tahreer neighborhood south Baquba city. The operation is implemented by the 5th division supported by the MNF helicopters. The source talked about clashes inside the area because some insurgents used the houses as safe houses. Some guided missiles were launched towards some locations used by the snipers who tried to stop the military forces.


-- The spokesman of the MNF in the south of Iraq Katy Brown said that 15 insurgents clashed with a British patrol north of Alk Hussein neighborhood (9 KMs west of Basra). According to the spokesman, 3 of them were injured. The spokesman added that a British vehicle was damaged when it crashed into a fuel tank south Basra. The spokesman also said that two British bases were attacked, Sa’ie base and Shat Al Arab hotel base were attacked last night without recording any casualties.



capt said...

New Thread!