It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran to prosecute the US over Drone

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Iran is developing (allegedly) nuclear weapons to gain regional and international geopolitical and strategic influence. Any concern surrounding the actual deployment of Iranian nuclear weapons is not over Iran delivering a missile (unless you're Israel), but moreso supplying it to terrorist organizations.




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Ixtab
 




You said it.


We'll be doing it, soon enough, at this rate.

Iran has been non-cooperative with the IEAE. Their issues with Stuxnet pretty much catch them with their hand in the cookie-jar, as the virus is specifically engineered to hamper PLCs used to control a specific type of servo motor operating at specific frequencies (velocities) used as part of uranium enrichment. It's hardly an issue for any other application.

But, like I said - we would rape Iran if it came to blows, and there is really nothing they can do against us outside of terrorist attacks - which are mostly a nuisance, even if they did pull off a tactical yield nuke in New York.

That is why they are using the U.N. It's a political ploy, and that is all it is. They've gotten considerably more wise following the invasion of Iraq - the counter-balance to their own military power. We waded right through Iraq's military defenses like they were hardly even there.

It will be no different with Iran. But you are simply too young and foolish to understand reality, and instead cling to peculiar hopes and dreams of seeing an underdog as the victor.

This is not a sporting event. The playing field is not level. There is no referee, and there are no rules aside from the laws of physics. There is no scenario under which Iran can possibly win in a military confrontation with the U.S.

I'm sure you disagree with me, but that is of little issue. I know our own military capability; better than most of my fellow service members do. I also know plenty about what Iran does and plausibly has (and I'm liberal when it comes to plausibility judgments). Even if they had training and organization on-par or superior to our own, there is no scenario where they can stand up against an onslaught by our forces.

It would take an unimaginable stroke of incompetence (two carriers running into each other and sinking while our ground forces drive into the fifth dimension, and all of the detonators for our warheads simultaneously fail... or allow politicians to make certain areas off-limits to our forces) for Iran to stand a chance at existing in spite of our decision to the contrary. Let alone come out as anything resembling a "victor."

What you are suggesting is simply nonsense, my dear fellow.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by yamother44
 



Iran is developing (allegedly) nuclear weapons to gain regional and international geopolitical and strategic influence. Any concern surrounding the actual deployment of Iranian nuclear weapons is not over Iran delivering a missile (unless you're Israel), but moreso supplying it to terrorist organizations.


Yes... that's pretty much what I said.

It's a "look at what our powerful nation can do!" (internally to solidify their own regime... since the populace tends to be impressed by oversized fireworks rather than actual military capability... surely, they are afraid of such big explosions - so should Israel, America, and every other nation they are raised to hate).

It's also a source of funding. Countless organizations around the world would pay top dollar to have a nuclear weapon at their disposal. It's not even so much as Iran's plots - they would sell to drug and war-lords who wish to get the drop on rivals or create enough chaos for them to seize control of more established regions.

Their first several nuclear warheads would likely be sold to subsidize development of an even larger number of second generation designs of their own.

Though I could be under-estimating their hatred and paranoia of Israel and over-estimating their patience (although it is easy to see how they could fear a nuclear weapon being set off by one of their customers creating international support for overt military action against Iran's nuclear assets... thereby ending their production of second generation nuclear arsenal).



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
I have this message to the rulers of Iran:

Let your people live in freedom.

Stop trying excuses for war.

Just let humans live on this planet.


Here, take a reality pill. www.youtube.com...

How about you take your message, and shove it up obama's donkey? He's the problem you know?

Yamother44, you are correct, but seriously? This is all over hyped BS because the US is scared of all the people it's pissed on over the last few centuries. Iran is no threat no anyone. The US govt are cowards, they know that on any playing field they'll lose. Even a few afghan farmers, or vietcon peasants seem to be enough to keep a few thousand troops busy for decades.

A real army, or a real enemy, and they're toast. That's what this is, you can smell the fear of all those bankers who know that if someones calls their bluff, they will lose, because they frauds. And the longer they play, the more obvious the bluff becomes.

FYI, neither the US nor Israel complies with ANY IAEA inspections (they have national security concerns you know). So why should they, who don't comply, demand that others comply? The Iranian's are getting nukes LIE started back in the 80's, after the US sponsored puppet the SHAH was eventually kicked out.

The enemy of mankind is the US Military. Not Iran, not #occupy, not Afghani peasants.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


I do not need a reality pill, thank you.

The so-called leaders of this world need a reality pill.

Stop the warfare and all the crap.

Because you are taking us all down.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 



Here, take a reality pill. www.youtube.com...


I believe the phrase is: "Epic Fail."

If you do not understand why suggesting one needs a dose of reality and linking to a youtube video qualifies as failure... well, the rest of what I have to say is going to go sailing right over your innocent little head.


A real army, or a real enemy, and they're toast. That's what this is, you can smell the fear of all those bankers who know that if someones calls their bluff, they will lose, because they frauds. And the longer they play, the more obvious the bluff becomes.


Actually, the U.S. military is exceptionally well suited to flat-out exterminating other military forces.

The problem the U.S. has is when you can't draw a line in the sand and say "friendly" or "foe." An ambiguous military forces, such as militants, will always be the bane of any organized military that is not bent on exterminating human life.


The US govt are cowards, they know that on any playing field they'll lose. Even a few afghan farmers, or vietcon peasants seem to be enough to keep a few thousand troops busy for decades.


You've, obviously, never seen combat.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a waiter, clerk, or some other person who interacts with the public. That is part of your job - you interact with them, you wear items of clothing and perform a function that clearly identifies you as having that job and responsibility.

But you have an enemy. Inspectors. There are 'official' inspectors - their coming is announced and their appearance defined. You know to put on your best face and follow all of the regulations you are supposed to when they are around.

There are also "unofficial" inspectors. Where they come from, their motives, etc are all unknown to you. You don't even know what they look like - and in many cases, never will. You still, however, have to do your job. And they will do theirs. They will intentionally make difficult, unusual, or frustrating requests. They will push your customer service to its breaking point and give you a rating that will, in the end, reflect upon your continued employment.

Perhaps they were contracted by your boss to analyze just how well customer service is being done. Perhaps they were done by an outside rating agency that will post its reviews in published media.

In the end, however, you never know when one of the people making an absolutely absurd request is an inspector of sorts. That is why 'secret shoppers' are contracted. They are very effective at probing the weaknesses a company has in interacting with the customer base - even more so than internal and official efforts to evaluate performance.

Which is exactly why "secret armies" are effective against organized armies. The organized army wears a uniform and is clearly defined. The militant, however, is not. He wears anything, can be anyone, and can employ almost any weapon that he/she can carry or otherwise mobilize. He can take several shots from a window, abandon his weapon, and fade into the nearby populace (or even cower in the corner, explaining some crazy ran the other way).

He can get a job working with the soldiers he shoots and slit their throats at night (or dig tunnels in secret that defeat perimeter security - allowing his buddies to come in and do it for him).

So long as the organized military sees fit to kill only those known to be militants... the militants have every advantage against a static army.

But when the military decides to move - it is going to move. If it decides to hit every sniper with a 120mm HE round from heavy armor support, collateral damage be damned.... or if it decides to simply kill every living thing that doesn't wear its uniform... then the militants lose their advantage.

In Iran - we would not be sitting still, and would not care to win over hearts and minds. We'd go in, break their toys, and leave. Interference from militants would be minimal and be little different from the interference offered by the scattered and disordered remnants of a military that would be left to stand in the way of our organized ground offensive.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


The only epic fail i can see is your warmongering. "We'd go in, break their toys, and leave." LOL, like Iraq??? Or Afghanistan? You're deluded, same as your leaders.

EDIT: With regards your ignorance, i have seen active combat. You're wrong, on that and other things too. Your arrogance will be your downfall.

Catwhoknowsplus1: fair point, no wars by anyone. Watch the vid, i promise it's worth it.


edit on 20-12-2011 by harryhaller because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
To all warmongers.

When the end comes, so will yours.

And some people will go to a better place.

You will not.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by harryhaller
 



Here, take a reality pill. www.youtube.com...


I believe the phrase is: "Epic Fail."

If you do not understand why suggesting one needs a dose of reality and linking to a youtube video qualifies as failure... well, the rest of what I have to say is going to go sailing right over your innocent little head.


A real army, or a real enemy, and they're toast. That's what this is, you can smell the fear of all those bankers who know that if someones calls their bluff, they will lose, because they frauds. And the longer they play, the more obvious the bluff becomes.


Actually, the U.S. military is exceptionally well suited to flat-out exterminating other military forces.

The problem the U.S. has is when you can't draw a line in the sand and say "friendly" or "foe." An ambiguous military forces, such as militants, will always be the bane of any organized military that is not bent on exterminating human life.


The US govt are cowards, they know that on any playing field they'll lose. Even a few afghan farmers, or vietcon peasants seem to be enough to keep a few thousand troops busy for decades.


You've, obviously, never seen combat.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a waiter, clerk, or some other person who interacts with the public. That is part of your job - you interact with them, you wear items of clothing and perform a function that clearly identifies you as having that job and responsibility.

But you have an enemy. Inspectors. There are 'official' inspectors - their coming is announced and their appearance defined. You know to put on your best face and follow all of the regulations you are supposed to when they are around.

There are also "unofficial" inspectors. Where they come from, their motives, etc are all unknown to you. You don't even know what they look like - and in many cases, never will. You still, however, have to do your job. And they will do theirs. They will intentionally make difficult, unusual, or frustrating requests. They will push your customer service to its breaking point and give you a rating that will, in the end, reflect upon your continued employment.

Perhaps they were contracted by your boss to analyze just how well customer service is being done. Perhaps they were done by an outside rating agency that will post its reviews in published media.

In the end, however, you never know when one of the people making an absolutely absurd request is an inspector of sorts. That is why 'secret shoppers' are contracted. They are very effective at probing the weaknesses a company has in interacting with the customer base - even more so than internal and official efforts to evaluate performance.

Which is exactly why "secret armies" are effective against organized armies. The organized army wears a uniform and is clearly defined. The militant, however, is not. He wears anything, can be anyone, and can employ almost any weapon that he/she can carry or otherwise mobilize. He can take several shots from a window, abandon his weapon, and fade into the nearby populace (or even cower in the corner, explaining some crazy ran the other way).

He can get a job working with the soldiers he shoots and slit their throats at night (or dig tunnels in secret that defeat perimeter security - allowing his buddies to come in and do it for him).

So long as the organized military sees fit to kill only those known to be militants... the militants have every advantage against a static army.

But when the military decides to move - it is going to move. If it decides to hit every sniper with a 120mm HE round from heavy armor support, collateral damage be damned.... or if it decides to simply kill every living thing that doesn't wear its uniform... then the militants lose their advantage.

In Iran - we would not be sitting still, and would not care to win over hearts and minds. We'd go in, break their toys, and leave. Interference from militants would be minimal and be little different from the interference offered by the scattered and disordered remnants of a military that would be left to stand in the way of our organized ground offensive.


Vietnam disagrees with you.

You realize this is what happened in Vietnam right? You can find plenty of testimony from soldiers stating how they were at times given orders to essentially kill anything that moved. Kids playing in a distance shot because they saw movement but didn't know what exactly was going on.

Now, what happened with Vietnam again? I can't remember, I want to say it was a huge success and everyone went home happy, mark that down as another victory for AMERICA right? No? Thats not what happened? You sure about that? Crazy, who woulda thought!

But you know what, I have a good feeling about next time!



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 



The only epic fail i can see is your warmongering. "We'd go in, break their toys, and leave." LOL, like Iraq??? Or Afghanistan? You're deluded, same as your leaders.


Different campaign goals. In both instances, our interest was to establish a friendly government that was resistant to organizations like AQ.

The primary phase of military operations in Iraq were concluded within a month. There did not exist a single organized remnant of Iraq's military or elite Republican Guard. The only thing left were militants. Had we extracted then and there, the region would have fallen to warlords and their rivalries and not seen the light of industry for another ten to fifteen years - if ever.

I really don't care what you call what I say. I am merely stating what will happen under a given set of circumstances, and recommending the most cost, life, and time-effective solution.


EDIT: With regards your ignorance, i have seen active combat. You're wrong, on that and other things too. Your arrogance will be your downfall.


I call your bluff. You haven't seen combat. You wreak of frivolous ideals and pointless gestures. Things every combat veteran learns to put in their respective place.

As for my arrogance, it is quite well deserved. I do not launch frontal assaults. If I'm talking to you, you've little to worry about. It's when I get quiet that you need to worry about what I'm planning.

Like I said. The playing field isn't level. Anyone who fights on a level playing field is nothing more than a performer - an entertainer. Kill people in their sleep. Throw dust in their eyes. The future is to be held by those who survive. Regardless of your intentions or ideals regarding the future - that simple fact remains. Ideals and intentions are secondary to the reality that life can and will end - that your future sits in your ability to preserve your life.

I presume, however, you are unable to articulate how I am wrong on other issues.

You simply settle for calling me a warmonger and saying I'm arrogant.

I really don't care for war. However, I don't put much stock in peace being this contagious concept that comes about miraculously. There are always those who like to crap in the punch bowl and piss in our corn-flakes. They survive based on intimidation and on destroying the honest work of others. Peace will always become enslaved under such systems of warlords.

You want to come in and comment on the military capability of the U.S. - I answered. Perhaps not as eloquently as I could have (I could have started rattling off various systems, organizational strategies, etc, and created a document that, while comprised of unclassified material, would be labeled Top Secret due to the single-source nature and OPSEC concerns). But I settled for explaining why we're the most powerful military on the planet, and why we'd have no trouble dismantling the military assets of a nation that exists just marginally above third-world standards.

Our military is not supposed to be a police force - which is what it has been used for through the past decade. Police officers don't often get to shoot until they are shot at. That is why we are having difficulty in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan, as I've already explained. The enemy gets to choose when, where, and how to attack. If they all wore obvious uniforms that they were an enemy combatant - we would have been gone (spare for diplomats and training advisers) eight years ago or sooner.

But, this concept is clearly lost to you. You can't shoot what you can't see. You can't see the enemy when they -are- part of the general population, right up until the moment they explode or start shooting.

Which is why, if we commit to military action in Iran - we should not stay. We should go in, trash the place, and leave. If it becomes a breeding ground for more terrorists, we continue to develop biological weapons for a reason - let's see how they handle a souped up Ebola virus. If that doesn't work - you can always use nuclear weapons. The rest of the world will shake their finger, but ultimately do nothing. The only reason they would get upset about our involvement with Iran would be the idea that we gain another base of power in the region.... can't do that if we contaminate it with radioactive isotopes of Cesium, now can we?

You'll find I can be a very compassionate or shrewd person, depending upon the circumstances and discussion.

When it comes to issues like this - it's all a numbers game and simulation. Every option is analyzed equally and presented.

From where I stand - there is absolutely no benefit to keeping Iran as a functional sovereign entity. Thus, it's really not a priority in my strategies. It is a collateral concept, at best.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 



Vietnam disagrees with you.


Negative.


You realize this is what happened in Vietnam right?


Neg.

www.english.illinois.edu...


You can find plenty of testimony from soldiers stating how they were at times given orders to essentially kill anything that moved. Kids playing in a distance shot because they saw movement but didn't know what exactly was going on.


You realize how silly this statement is, correct?

If there are still living beings left in Vietnam, then there is still the potential for the VC to exist, correct?

You, clearly, do not understand what I was truly talking about. Further, the VC would not have been nearly the issue it was, were the objective to push North and destroy the NVA and the government infrastructure of North Vietnam.

This would have ended all attempts by North Vietnam to pressure South Vietnam into communism - barring direct involvement of China and/or Russia (which was feared at the time - and the reason we never conducted bombing campaigns deep into North Vietnam - where the strongholds of organization were for both the NVA and VC).


Now, what happened with Vietnam again? I can't remember, I want to say it was a huge success and everyone went home happy, mark that down as another victory for AMERICA right? No? Thats not what happened? You sure about that? Crazy, who woulda thought!


There were two major problems with Vietnam.

First, the war started as escalation from a policing action (indeed, it was never an official war). This was the result of horrible amounts of Mission Creep - which are indicators of poor command structure, discipline, and leadership.

Second, and most important - America was more passionate about preventing South Vietnam from living under communism than the South Vietnamese were. To them - it was a minor inconvenience - one of the many they lived with. At first, they were happy to receive our support. As the war drew on, however, they became less and less enthusiastic about the idea of fighting people they considered to be family, and some even regarded it as an intrusion by an outside interloper (a very common concept among the Asian nations - the population is perceived as a large family, of sorts, and our escalation and involvement quickly made a number feel as though a guest had been invited into the house but was now calling the shots).

That, ultimately, is what led to the failure of the campaign objective in Vietnam.

www.militaryhistoryonline.com...


"Vietnamization" was both a goal and the program through which that goal would be achieved at the earliest practical time.[1] The main elements of Vietnamization were the improvement and modernization of the South Vietnamese armed forces, the transfer of day to day combat operations from the United States military to the ARVN, and the unilateral withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam. Vietnamization was essentially a strategy that would require the Vietnamese to survive with greatly reduced American participation and allow the United States to maintain its obligations and interests in Asia while heading towards peace.[2] South Vietnam would be a test case for implementing the "Nixon Doctrine" and a new U.S. planning approach to Asia.[3]


This, obviously, did not go according to plan. The will simply didn't exist within South Vietnam to continue resisting the North's insistence on communism.

Compare this to Korea - where South Korea boomed under western influence and leadership following the unconditional surrender of Japan. Their population maintained the drive to remain independent from North Korea and its communist backers. Because of that, we were able to provide the support necessary to win the war - despite overwhelming assaults by Chinese forces "on loan" to North Korea.

It's all down to will and resolve. South Korea had it. South Vietnam didn't.


But you know what, I have a good feeling about next time!


I'm not too sure how to analyze the current situation in Iraq. My hunch is that they will end up adopting a theocratic regime that is similar to Pakistan (and likely just as bipolar).

In the end - it is up to them. We can't run their country for them. Not for much longer, anyway. It all depends upon what they have the will to do.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Aim64C because: edted quote tags



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
double post...sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.it was the aliens,i swear.

edit on 20-12-2011 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN


What's next?...

Atleast they are taking political route. The U.S, I'm sure, would have pronounced it an act of war against NATO and launched at offensive at their air-bases.

They are sending a letter to the UN, which is I'm sure is where it will start and end. They have proof, and US admits it... but in all honestly, what can the UN do? Have sanctions put against it?

I will keep this thread up to date with all developments.

ca.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Yeah you're sure.Because some clown on ATS would know(or atleast most of you like to think you know) what the US would do.Give me a #ing break.You know nothing.I love how all of you claim everyone else is sheep..but honestly the longer I've been here the more I realize YOU are the sheep.Yeah I said it.

Ps..before you accuse me of it..no,I'm not a disinfo agent



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
This thread proves why so many people think Americans are DUMB, and you know what I guess in 95% of the time they are right.

You cannot nuke Iran, at all, no way will Russia and China allow the USA to start nuking their neighbours, get a grip and get a dose of reality, if you send in land forces it will be a long and protracted war, especially if Russia and China take Iran's side, remember when ever Russia or China have been in active support of any nation the US has attacked, the US has lost i.e Korea and Vietnam, and you can make up as many busll# excuses as to why that you want, but you still LOST

Americans think that they can just keep attacking and they can beat anyone, this is not true, you can only do it with the support of other counties, tell me one war the US has won on its own? Oh that's right the invasion of Nicaragua, so yeah you have won one war then, sheesh get over yourselves. Your troops are just blood thirsty thugs, gung ho and pretty much hopeless. In the first Iraq war, the only British troops killed in combat were killed by trigger happy Americans. In Iraq and Afghanistan you have killed over 1 Million innocent civilians and you still cant win

You lot are all mouth, screaming for war and how good it is when you don't have to fight and others are doing the dying, wait until its your families that die, your cities that are destroyed, wake up the world is sick of you and the end will come



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
This thread proves why so many people think Americans are DUMB, and you know what I guess in 95% of the time they are right.

You cannot nuke Iran, at all, no way will Russia and China allow the USA to start nuking their neighbours, get a grip and get a dose of reality, if you send in land forces it will be a long and protracted war, especially if Russia and China take Iran's side, remember when ever Russia or China have been in active support of any nation the US has attacked, the US has lost i.e Korea and Vietnam, and you can make up as many busll# excuses as to why that you want, but you still LOST

Americans think that they can just keep attacking and they can beat anyone, this is not true, you can only do it with the support of other counties, tell me one war the US has won on its own? Oh that's right the invasion of Nicaragua, so yeah you have won one war then, sheesh get over yourselves. Your troops are just blood thirsty thugs, gung ho and pretty much hopeless. In the first Iraq war, the only British troops killed in combat were killed by trigger happy Americans. In Iraq and Afghanistan you have killed over 1 Million innocent civilians and you still cant win

You lot are all mouth, screaming for war and how good it is when you don't have to fight and others are doing the dying, wait until its your families that die, your cities that are destroyed, wake up the world is sick of you and the end will come



Hahaha.More ignorance..I assume you aren't American?You really believe most Americans are dumb?I love hypocrites.They usually do the same thing the accuse Amercians of doing.What's that you ask?Wait for it.................................................................................................................................................... ............


IGNORANCE! Seriously..this place is a joke anymore.Nothing but bashing on america,as if we're the only country with a corrupt government.Here's a number for you.95% of the posters on this board are a joke..and hypocrites.#in ridiculous anymore.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Drone, yes, but a flying trojan horse.
By now, any important Iranian handling it has been bio-marked, and other undiscovered goodies released that will be monitoring their military actions and the development of their nuclear weapons. Too late now, they should have destroyed it without touching it, but then we knew they were not that smart.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
If they do prosecute the US, then good stuff!

The US deserve it, and i'm sick of their bullying.

Just as a side-note, I don't hate Americans, just your Government (as well as mine in the UK), and would love to see them go down (which definitely won't happen just by a complaint from Iran).



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSnowman

Originally posted by Chadwickus
And I also wonder about the double standards here since Iran are developing/have developed their own stealth drone.

Why have a stealth drone if you don't plan on using it?


To use it on countries that you are at war with, not on whoever you damn well please.


The drone was supposed to have been operated by CIA iirc. Good luck arguing that US intelligence is not 'at war' with their counterparts in Iran.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Iran wants to 'prosecute' the US over the Drone?
Good luck with that.
The entire planet wants to keep an eye on Iran. Their leadership is crazy
and they are playing with nuclear materials. No one ... even the most anti-Americans ...
are going to stop the US Drones flying over Iran.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 


Politics lost Vietnam. Period!
Take politics out of war. Politics is great for pre and post war. If the US Military wanted to kill every living thing in both Vietnam and Iraq, both would have lasted less than 7 days. Apparently they are not the blood thirsty killers you make them out to be. As much as you loath the US Govt / Military, they do not kill indiscriminately.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join