Article

2006-10-19 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-19 08:28|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Interesting read. Thought this was flawed, though:

"Now, conscriptionlets call it the c-wordis almost as unthinkable politically as the g-word is morally. Our practical choice, however, following the loss of a city or two, would be between these two unthinkables, the g-word and the c-word, civilizational annihilation or civilizational makeover."

First of all, who would argue that the Middle East is "civilized", at least in the Western definition of the word?

Second of all, if there actually were to be a "super" battle in the Middle East and American forces were conscripted to fight it, doesn't he imagine that the losses to America would be large? From the point of view of a Westerner, why would large loss of American life, surely a given in such a future world war as it was in previous world wars, be preferable to gargantuan loss of ME life?

Posted by Jules 2006-10-19 08:56|| 2006-10-19 08:56|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't know : will the West (assuming here the USA, but others would join too) would be able to pull a genocide?

I can picture nukes being fired in anger in a "3-conjecture" fashion right after a city gets wiped out... but toward which objectives? If boots on the ground are needed to eliminate the threat, would you imagine western soldiers actually killing civilians in drove, on purpose?
I Don't. I could imagine a Boer war-like brutality (concentration camps for ennemy civilians) a and WWII cities/infrastructures killing campaign with high collateral deathtoll, but no genocide in the actual meaning of the word.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-19 09:32|| 2006-10-19 09:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Exactly-I could imagine that, too. It is the author who jumps to "genocide".

Posted by Jules 2006-10-19 09:51|| 2006-10-19 09:51|| Front Page Top

#4 Another way to look at it: did it take "genocide" to make Japan capitulate in WWII? No-it didn't take the extermination of the entire people.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-19 09:53|| 2006-10-19 09:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Yes, but it took decisive victory, total submission through total defeat, something missing from modern warfare since the korean war IIUC.
It's true that the Cold war and its various "liberation struggles"/proxy wars put an hold on this type of total warfare, but I wonder if this could still be achieved, or if our societies have "evolved" beyond that?
It's not even asking if, say, modern french young men could endure WWI-like casualties without having society collapse, but if we would be even capable of inflicting similar casualties on others?... "Public opinion" as a tool of the "progressists" in their undermining of the West?

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-19 10:16|| 2006-10-19 10:16|| Front Page Top

#6 If we did to Saudi Arabia half of what the allies did to Japan or Germany in WW2, it would be called genocide.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-19 10:20|| 2006-10-19 10:20|| Front Page Top

#7 In fact, the idea of a genocide being perpretated against the paleo is a recurring victimization meme (again : "paleos are WWII jews, joooooooos are nazis"), and this sin't new; there's an awful song by a leftist singer called renaud (whom I actually like, even though he's a despisable alcoholic, france-hating creep) written right after the Haysel (sp?) stadium tragedy, back in 85 IIRC, which is about Margaret Tatcher (all men are evil, wimen are not, except MT), with lyrics saying "palestinians and armenians can testify a genocide is masculine, like an SS or a toreador".
so, for the fashionable far left, already back in 1985, the paelos were being genocided by the joooooos.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-19 10:27|| 2006-10-19 10:27|| Front Page Top

#8 "it took decisive victory, total submission through total defeat, something missing from modern warfare since the korean war IIUC...I wonder if this could still be achieved, or if our societies have "evolved" beyond that? "

Yes. It depends on how badly we want to win. It depends on whether Westerners have the intelligence to see what the loss of our civilization would mean. It depends on remembering what we are fighting against.

Scenario 1-The ME suffers horrible losses, the West suffers fewer losses.
Scenario 2-The West suffers horrible losses, the ME suffers fewer losses. Hello, sharia and the caliphate.
Scenario 3-A third side emerges, opposing the West and the ME. Haven't thought this one through yet, but exactly what military forces would make up such a side?
Scenario 4-Both sides (maybe more than both-several sides) suffer horrible losses. Whose civilization would win the default?
Scenario 4-Neither side suffers horrible losses in a world war. (in terms of numbers, this seems about where we are-jaw jaw, stagnation, aggravation). Slow, seeping losses, year after year. Can't last forever-something will give, sooner or later.
Scenario 5?
Scenario 6?

Posted by Jules 2006-10-19 10:47|| 2006-10-19 10:47|| Front Page Top

#9 Sorry-my is numbering off.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-19 10:49|| 2006-10-19 10:49|| Front Page Top

#10 ARGH!

Posted by Jules 2006-10-19 10:49|| 2006-10-19 10:49|| Front Page Top

#11 ..Oh have no doubt, if someone gets a nuke in here - or even a dirty bomb - and gets it set off, we'll pull the trigger on someobdy.
I'm going to use the scenario I've give to others since 9/11 -
Imagine one where you don't have Aaron Brown on top of a building a mile away showing you the column of smoke, but instead a handicam from ten or fifteen miles away showing a mushroom cloud.
Imagine one where you don't have Fox running nonstop updates and commentary and that crawl at the bottom, but one where there is no sound, no video, just a card on the screen that says "STAY WHERE YOU ARE UNTIL THE ARMY GETS THERE."
Imagine one where the Usual Suspects aren't telling us to stay calm and think about the other side's motivations, but instead they themselves are dead or dying in that pit, and their surviving fellow travelers know that they too were targeted and all their words and efforts didn't matter, because the enemy still wanted them dead.
There will be no pause for reflection, no consideration of the Other's feelings, just a cold, rational response that will burn down the Caliphate once and for all.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-19 11:31|| 2006-10-19 11:31|| Front Page Top

#12 Conscription is a terrible idea.

It's possibly the most direct and worst case of state slavery.

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-10-19 11:52|| 2006-10-19 11:52|| Front Page Top

#13 Mike you hit the nail on the head.

The death we will rain down form missles, and inflict up-close and personal will be terrible, but they wil lcome if we are pushed hard enough.

Pebbles, you're full of shit. The worst state slavery is the Caliphate. Conscription, if needed to generate the numbers to eradicate the threat to our freedom, is a proper response for a free state to take. Or are you stupid enough to beleive that our forebaers were slaves in WW2 and the defeat of socialism and fascism?

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-19 12:02|| 2006-10-19 12:02|| Front Page Top

#14 One other thing to Dim Rocks from Idiotstan:

The context here is after a nuclear attack on a US city with casualties in the 6 or even 7 figure range.

Our only alternatives are to either glass the middle east and commit genocide via nukes, taking out al the major Islamic holy sites, and al the major cities in the region from Egypt through Pakistan, or...

building an army large enough to operate and crush that entire region with sheer force of numbers, toppling the governments, and destroying the entire civilization there - completely and utterly uprooting the tribalism and Islam and the intolerance and hatred indemic to that region, then policing it while we rebuild it into the right sort of nation states (c.f. Japan's God-Emporer and Germany-Master-Race in WW2).

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-19 12:06|| 2006-10-19 12:06|| Front Page Top

#15 Conscription may someday be necessary, but genocide is not. I consider the women and children of Islam slaves, and as such, we would be freeing them. If WW2 Germany killed only the Jewish men, would that be genocide ?
It may or may not be necessary to kill all musslim men, but doing so would end the ruthless bombing and beheading of 'infidels'. That, after all is the signature of terrorism, and I firmly believe we must eliminate all terrorism to secure a peaceful and prosperous future around the world. Now, if we could get the muzzies to saparate into 2 groups, terrorists, and non-believers, that would do nicely.

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-19 12:15|| 2006-10-19 12:15|| Front Page Top

#16 wxjames, that was the whole point: if we continue to back up, continue to leave our borders open, continue to negotiate with those who use negotiation as a ploy, continue to wage war as half measures instead of full victory, continue to ignore the cultural issues that need to be demolished in that region....

...then we are setting ourselves up for just such a decision. Given the anger that we as a peopel tend to have when struck, imagine the anger of 9/11 amplified by 100 times the casualties. Now imagine trying to withhold a nuclear response to obliterate the sources (religion, nation, andd tribes) of the megadeaths inflicted upon us.

Thats the terrible place that the Islamists have put us - and worse for them, either way you look at it, they ahve brought ruin on thier entire region, either from occupation and destruction of thier society, or the nuclear erasure of their religious, civilization and population centers.

Another warning is that given the isolationist bent of the modern Dems and their aversion to war... if they come to power, the only choices they will present the nation with are surrender or nuke, because they will not support a protracte, possibly decade-long land war in the middle east and SW Asia. And given that the Amrican peopel will not surrender, that leaves only one alternative for them: nuclear destruction of Islamism and its centers of power and population in those regions (and the implied threat of the same to Indonesia and other Islamic nations outside the region).

Its horrid. But its coming.

Choose.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-19 12:27|| 2006-10-19 12:27|| Front Page Top

#17 an awful song by a leftist singer called renaud

[sigh] So I have to change My name now.

Anyway, I don't conscription is a good idea at any time, under any condition. We had hundreds of thousands of volunteers after Pearl Harbor. They were all sent back "wait for your draft notice." I'm too old to be drafted now, so I can take this position disinterestedly.

Volunteering for military service in wartime is sort of the ultimate in democratic public service.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-10-19 12:53|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-10-19 12:53|| Front Page Top

#18 True - I beleive there woudl be no lack of volunteers - but conscription might be neccesary to ensure the orderly entry of a huge number of people into the armed forces and public service for a WW2-sized army of millions. And it does have the advantage (and disadvantages) of involving the entire breadth and depth of society. If it were to occur then there would need to be NO exepmtions - only alternative service based on limitations of the individual (border guards, etc)

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-19 13:35|| 2006-10-19 13:35|| Front Page Top

#19 Its horrid. But its coming.

No it's not. Sit down - it's probably a lie.

Posted by Gromolet Graick8916 2006-10-19 13:51|| 2006-10-19 13:51|| Front Page Top

#20 Grom - yous say its a lie. Prove it.

Show me an instance of whre negotiating with Ismaic terrorists has EVVER borught anything other than more fighting if you refuse to surrender.

Thats the problem - they have the most intoleran outlook, and its their sincere core beleif that you will either convert, submit, or die.

Those are the ONLY choices they allow.

Given those, the only choice is to destory them and the culture that bred them. We are no engaged in Iraq to see if we can create that mytical beast: the non-violent moderate Islamc human, with a secular democratic republic.

So far, the left wants to run and hide until the wolf is not only at the door but in the house. Bush wants to try to tame the wolf.

Those of us in the military are doing what men have always done with wolves: kill them until they are no longer a threat.

If we allow them to spread, the only defense will be eradication.

Choose which form you want. And remember surrender and slavery is not an option.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-19 15:23|| 2006-10-19 15:23|| Front Page Top

#21 "...the only choices they will present the nation with are surrender or nuke, because they will not support a protracte[d], possibly decade-long land war in the middle east and SW Asia. And given that the Am[e]rican people will not surrender, that leaves only one alternative for them: nuclear destruction of Islamism and its centers of power and population in those regions (and the implied threat of the same to Indonesia and other Islamic nations outside the region)."

Brings me back to my original question, in the context of boots on the ground: "why would large loss of American life, surely a given in such a future world war as it was in previous world wars, be preferable to gargantuan loss of ME life"?

I guess I am quibbling with some about the definition of "genocide". I am not interested in the extermination of a race or a nationality; I am interested in snuffing out an extremist ideology that has violent designs on the whole world-Islam. Somewhere between obliteration of an entire people and buyoffs/negotiations lies the option of striking heavily and cleverly and letting the aftermath persuade those less committed to the death cult to reconsider.

BTW, my comments shouldn't be read as opposition to the draft, necessarily; a draft might prove unnecessary to a pissed off America.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-19 15:38|| 2006-10-19 15:38|| Front Page Top

#22 Pebbles, you're full of shit. The worst state slavery is the Caliphate.

She's British, and female. Adjust and calibrate accordingly.

Posted by Charlie the Tuna 2006-10-19 16:46|| 2006-10-19 16:46|| Front Page Top

#23 I don't know. I suppsoe they woudl be OK with nuking them, as woudl those on the far right (Pat Buchannan).

But those conservatives who see things the way I do, unliek liberals,value all God's children, enough that if a few of us have to bleed to save a lot of them, then its worth it. Comes with being a soldier I guess.

But its usally best to make a LOT of the evildoers bleed and as few of our eople as possible.

I cannot say that nukes woudl bring about a lasting peac, nor that they woudlnt demoolish friends as well as eneomies inthe region. Our very core as a Judeao-Christian country compels us to fight for freedome at great cost, but to also be as humane as we can toward the innocent. A couple hundred years ago some old white guys put it pretty well...

... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security

... And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-19 16:53|| 2006-10-19 16:53|| Front Page Top

#24 Conscription is like abortion, it's evil and at times necessary.

Posted by Shipman 2006-10-19 17:35|| 2006-10-19 17:35|| Front Page Top

#25 The next war will be far worse than we can imagine. I doubt nukes will be used nor genocide, but many will wish they had. The war will last much longer and be much more decentralized than we imagine. More like the Thirty Years and Seven Years Wars combined. The classic four horsemen of the apocalypse will range over much of the earth as they have not for centuries. No continent will be unvisited with even the United States receiving at least one of them in the homeland. At the end, Islam will be finished but at a terrible price. I should not be surprised to see Europe also unrecognizable, at least as a seat of liberal humanistic civilization.

I imagine this has been war gamed in the pentagon with some startling results but in so generalized a fashion that specific lessons cannot be drawn. Think Diplomacy meets Star Wars. America's dedication to its core Judaelo-Christian principles will be sorely tested and in retrospect found wanting. But that will have been what had to be done. And so we will emerge with a new greatest generation. But it will not need to be conscripted because the war will not be fought, at least by the U. S., with Napoleonic levee en masse armies but with high tech weapons systems in the traditional naval and air dimensions and also in space, economic and biological dimensions. And there will be no shortage of volunteers, only skills.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-19 17:48|| 2006-10-19 17:48|| Front Page Top

#26 I don't think that conscription will be very effective against a networked threat like the Islamists. So I tend agree with NS. If the Europeans especially are like the Levantine and Egyptian Rumi in the 630s and 640s, waiting for the return of the Byzantine Army, they are going to wait forever.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-10-19 18:26|| 2006-10-19 18:26|| Front Page Top

#27 Conscription is STUPID writ large in today's warfare. You do NOT want conscripts in the modern military, the equipment and skills used preclude a conscript military. What you will want is 24/7 production of light armoured vehicles like the Cougar and Stryker, many more of the MGS systems per battalion, light cheap UAVs, and the NATO standard assault caliber to be updated to the 6.8mm SPC.
Also, the Air Force Boneyard needs to be emptied of usable airframes so they can be rebuilt/upgraded for modern CAS missions, the A-10 needs to be put back into production, and even the A-1 Skyraider needs to be looked at as a weapon system for new production.
Remember before Clinton and the Demos gutted the military in the 1990s, we had TWICE as many men under arms as we do now. We can have the volunteers if we increase the defense budget, the main issue is training and equipment. You can train a man to an acceptable level in 6 months; tanks and APCs take years to build in acceptable numbers, primarily since we have shutdown those lines and no longer have the tooling or the long-lead items required.
One big improvement in the general lethality of the infantry could be done rather quickly by simply buying the 6.8mm SPC upper receivers that several firearms makers have for the M-16/M-4, and have all out 24/7 production of the ammo from all the private sector companies. The replacement uppers mate with the lower receivers and have the same sighting/furniture setups so weapons familiarity is not lost. Plus the M-16 magazines can be quickly and cheaply modified to accept the 6.8mm round, and new 6.8mm magazines can quickly be produced. The 6.8mm has effectively double the killing range of the 5.56mm round, and is much more lethal per hit, comparable to the 7.62mm NATO standard round, without the weight or recoil. And the penalty in ammo carriage is small - 25 rounds of 6.8mm weighs what 28 round of 5.56mm does.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-10-19 20:10|| 2006-10-19 20:10|| Front Page Top

#28 Yes - but note that it's not likely other NATO countries will follow suit. Which would mean a stake through the heart of whatever is left of NATO.

Might be necessary, but oh I am relutant to push Merkel and Blair into that.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-19 20:13|| 2006-10-19 20:13|| Front Page Top

#29 115AS - thats the thing: using current tactics by striking aginst thr pressure points, we require a precise, professional force like we have now.

But thats picking off the gators.

The networked threat will fail when you remove the medium in which the network operates: Islamic nations that support them and Islamic culture that hides them. Drain the swamp and the gators will die.

Remember the context here too: After a big strike we will have in a way guarnateed to work - and one that will work mocuh more quickly than precions actions that we are using now. The methods of WW2 come to mind: Complete obliteration of a culture throughout the region. That will require millions under arms, and a large logistical and military effort to invade, demolish, police and rebuild those nations and cultures the way we did Japan and Germany. And inthe process redraw the national lines into smaller ethnic areas for easier management.

So a conscripted army would be needed if for no other reasons than sheer mass numbers needed to quickly (less than a decade) and widely (the whole region) remove the threat to the US.

But I would want to maintain the volunteer force at current high quality standards, maybe by marking them like the old Soviet "Guards" units or the germans did their "Veteran" units - better personnel training and gear to serve as a unit in trouble spots and hard points that conscript units woudl be hard pressed to do well. Use the conscript divisions (which will still be higher quality than any opponent they face) for the constabulary and "blanket the area" fighting.

The current way of operating is insufficient to remake a region quickly enough under the threat of subsequent nuclear attacks, especially if we we have bailed out of Irag and have to restart the process.

Start with liberating Kurdistan as a base of operations and erasing the governments of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Venezuela [isolate Cuba] (must secure our hemisphere as well since Cuba and Venezueal are developign into terror backers here in cenrtal and latin america).

Posted by Oldspook 2006-10-19 20:17|| 2006-10-19 20:17|| Front Page Top

#30 Blair has oil, Merkel has not. NATO will not survive the next oil embargo.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-19 20:25|| 2006-10-19 20:25|| Front Page Top

#31 The Indians would do a much better job of occupying the Middle east than we. I say outsource it and let them have a cut of the oil revenue so that they have the chance to compete with China at the same time they obliterate the culture of Islam. I'd settle for Indian culture there. for now.

The region will not be "remade" for decades. It will be subjected to a reconstruction after starvation and pestilence finish their work.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-19 20:32|| 2006-10-19 20:32|| Front Page Top

#32 One of the truly funny movies of the 80's was Top Gun. The thought of turning the F-14, a fleet defense platform with the ability to simultaneously shoot down multiple maneuvering supersonic targets at ranges over 100 miles, into a gun-toting dogfighter is emblematic of American civilian constraints on the military and is germane to this article.

If there were a nuclear attack against the US, our forces should not be restrained or constrained by political correctness. We have the weapons and the American people would DEMAND that they be used. Someone must be glassed. If there were multiple candidates, then all of them would be destroyed. Anyone who bitched would be told that they were either with us or against us and the bombers were in the air and can be retargeted. An American president who exercised restraint would find that his party would be swept from office and never trusted again. Just sending American boys and girls to arrest the bad guys would not be enough. An attack like that can only be answered with fire and blood.

I spent enough time as a B-52 crewdog to fully understand what it means to nuke someone. The pussies in the San Francisco wing of the Democrats might equivocate, but the Jacksonians of the heartland will demand the absolute destruction of our enemies and their allies. It will be Islam delenda est.

Posted by RWV 2006-10-19 21:58|| 2006-10-19 21:58|| Front Page Top

#33 When the going gets rough, the Middle East will be cleared as necessary to prevent further attack and to control oil. There is no country in the Middle East that cannot be brought to its knees by a half dozen H-bombs. And we can deliver them same-day by submarine or ICBM without conscripting a single person. And we will have plenty of bombs to spare. Iran is playing a suicidal game and will lose. We're not playing games.

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-19 22:16|| 2006-10-19 22:16|| Front Page Top

#34 #8 - Remember that the Dark Ages started after Rome fell and the civilization so dependent on transportation & other imperial assets to feed itself fell with it. People burned books to cook with. Our food today is made from oil and cooked with gas.
Scenario 5 - Iran, Israel & Pakistan cut loose with their nukes at each other, taking out a few of the major oil fields and the Suez Canal. The major nuclear powers are not involved. Up to a million die in the nuclear blasts, but wait. Oil production plummets 50%, for the next 15 years, then slowly climbs, but never returns to 2006 levels. Millions die worldwide (including in the US) for lack of food and other basics of life supported by modern oil-powered lifestyle, combined with severe worldwide economic depression lasting decades.
In this scenario, it matters not what the US does or doesn't do to the Muslim world, everyone will suffer greatly.

Posted by Snuns Thromp1484 2006-10-19 22:58|| 2006-10-19 22:58|| Front Page Top

#35 #33 - Darrell - I don't believe the US is serious about this. Among other changes, one that would convince me to change my mind is really securing our southern border.

Posted by Snuns Thromp1484 2006-10-19 23:02|| 2006-10-19 23:02|| Front Page Top

#36 We have oil, shale, and coal - it won't take 15 years here - we are the Magic Kingdom of 2 of the 3 - coal and shale, and we really don't know how much we have of the 3rd.

The environazis will deal w/it or die. We'll be burning, drilling and polluting (which will help w/GW).

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-10-19 23:35|| 2006-10-19 23:35|| Front Page Top

#37 The real threat from Conscription, aka "the Draft", is what the PC, Waffle-luving Lefties, Governmentists, and OWG'ers, etc. will give back to ordinary Society + Amer People once "the Victory" is de facto "won". INCREASE BIG GOVERNMENT AT HOME, WEAKEN AMERICA OVERSEAS, SOCIALIST USA UNDER ANTI-SOVEREIGN OWG + ANTI-AMERICAN AMERICAN SOCIALISM [Washington-US NPE subservient to Global-OWG Authority]. THE LEFTIES DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ANYTHING BACK IFF FASCIST/NAZI = LIMITED COMMUNIST, AMERICA = AMERIKA, USA = USSA = USR, ......etc. doesn't win the WOT, now do they!? * OIL STORM > Russia-China still stays Russia-China - its only America that has to become the USR. O'REILLY > LADY UNITARIAN MINISTER = activist group complains about Dubya-GOP-led US "torture" BUT SIMUL REFUSES TO DESCRIBE HERS = HER GROUP'S DEFINITION OF SAID "TORTURE". IOW, LEFT > the USA is the only one that is demanded to follow the SACRED HEART + TEACHINGS of Christ, espec on MERCY + FORGIVENESS OF ENEMIES -Amer's enemies don't have to, NOR ARE DEMANDED TO.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-10-19 23:39|| 2006-10-19 23:39|| Front Page Top

13:08 Unating Sleater5673
23:56 Broadhead6
23:53 Broadhead6
23:50 Zenster
23:48 Snuns Thromp1484
23:47 Old Patriot
23:45 Broadhead6
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:38 anonymous2u
23:37 Old Patriot
23:35 anonymous2u
23:33 FeralCat
23:31 Icerigger
23:30 11A5S
23:27 Icerigger
23:26 Old Patriot
23:26 Snuns Thromp1484
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:24 Icerigger
23:24 Broadhead6
23:21 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 Broadhead6
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:17 Barbara Skolaut