If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   Good news: U.S. victory over Iran would only take three weeks, so no big deal   (rt.com) divider line 383
    More: Unlikely, Iran, Mehr News Agency, military threat, Near East, computer worm, security experts, u.s. central command, wire transfer  
•       •       •

10978 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2012 at 1:38 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-04 10:26:44 AM
About a month before we invaded Iraq (the first time) I was at a conference at the Woodrow Wilson Inst. in DC and I told the mid-level military and CIA around the big oak conference table that they were mistaken if they thought it was going to be as simple as walking in and getting, "an extra card and two more armies a turn."

When I got back home somebody had sent me this picture:
gilgameshcontrite.com

/ Yes, the CIA guys really had business cards that were like, "Asian Pacific Import Export Co."
 
2012-05-04 10:30:41 AM
I will agree to my tax dollars funding another retarded war as soon as you deliver to me an actual Captain America to fight in this. I feel this is an even trade.

Good Luck DARPA.
 
2012-05-04 10:31:49 AM

BigBooper: mbillips: grimlock1972: 3 weeks? might be enough to smash their Military ( navy about 30 minutes ) but considerable longer dealing with Islamic insurgents lead by the ousted clerics as there is no way they are going to give up the power they hold with out a long protracted fight.

RTFA. Nobody is talking about defeating Iran's government. They're talking about eliminating Iran as a threat to Israel and shipping in the Persian Gulf. And only in the event of Iran STARTING a fight.

It depends when this goes down. If Obama orders the strikes, I have no doubt that he would go head hunting. He's proven that he's more than willing to hunt down and kill America's enemies. Think of the fallout if he could achieve regime change with no boots on the ground.... Other than a handful of special forces of course.

/I hear Chuck Norris trained a unit of Seals
//The only weapon they carry into battle is the roundhouse kick


The president is not going to attack Iran without provocation. The FA is only more saber rattling. The Israelis are much more of a threat to the Iran than the US. They know this, so it cost them nothing to posture with the US.

All it would take to affect a regime change in Iran is to take out the Ayatollahs. They hold the real power. What most Americans don't remember is that the Islamist revolution in Iran really didn't have much more than a fanatical following. The rank and file there are secularist and don't like the current Islamist regime on jot. There are smart people in Iran who are ready to take over if the present regime were removed. They must remain rather silent, since any dissidence there results in summary execution.
 
2012-05-04 10:34:02 AM
Looks like this thread is already ALT'd up.

/Vote Israel
 
2012-05-04 10:35:51 AM

nrdgrl: [cdn.ientry.com image 616x439]


But even if he did the same thing over and over again, at least he did end up eventually with different results.
 
2012-05-04 10:35:51 AM
It's amusing how many of you can't read.

Of course the U.S. military would destroy Iran's in a matter of weeks, perhaps in less time. This is a separate issue from successfully occupying Iran for a long period, controlling it, or changing its government. These tasks would be considerably more difficult and could likely become disasters.

But the U.S. military would utterly destroy Iran's, no contest.
 
2012-05-04 10:38:08 AM

zetar: About a month before we invaded Iraq (the first time) I was at a conference at the Woodrow Wilson Inst. in DC and I told the mid-level military and CIA around the big oak conference table that they were mistaken if they thought it was going to be as simple as walking in and getting, "an extra card and two more armies a turn."

When I got back home somebody had sent me this picture:
[gilgameshcontrite.com image 515x332]

/ Yes, the CIA guys really had business cards that were like, "Asian Pacific Import Export Co."



I'm sorry, that should have been invaded Iraq the 2nd time.

Duh!
 
2012-05-04 10:40:44 AM

Dahnkster: ...lemme see what's going on Facebook and FARK.


Just some asinine trolling.
 
2012-05-04 10:42:18 AM

Blame Hofmann: It's amusing how many of you can't read.

Of course the U.S. military would destroy Iran's in a matter of weeks, perhaps in less time. This is a separate issue from successfully occupying Iran for a long period, controlling it, or changing its government. These tasks would be considerably more difficult and could likely become disasters.

But the U.S. military would utterly destroy Iran's, no contest.


Now, now. George W. Bush taught us, we don't need to concern ourselves with such matters. We already know we would be received as heroes and that, in their undying appreciation, the Iranians would serve us cookies and ice cream. And while they are doing that, they will implement an American-style democratic utopia. So we should get right on this. We could call it Operation Roiling Colon.
 
2012-05-04 10:42:58 AM

JackieRabbit: The rank and file there are secularist and don't like the current Islamist regime on jot.


The green revolution doesn't agree.

Yes there is a fair amounf of peopel who don't like the regime, I have some buddies from Iran who hated it, but that isn't the consensous.

Taking otu the ayatollah's would lead to a bloody revolution, or create more ani-american sentiment and cement the countries hardliners in power.
 
2012-05-04 10:44:57 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: vygramul: tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: It worked so well in Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan why the hell wouldn't it work in Iran, too?

Of course it'll work, just you don't understand the true victory conditions on the scenario.

The military's job is to tell you how fast they can take out the enemy's military. If there's something else that needs doing, the military may not be your best option.

Oh I know, I have no doubt we could take their conventional forces down, as it says in the article, it's what happens after, and this wouldn't be a war we were fighting to win at least not right now. The seige of Iraq was so much fun let's do it with Iran.

/See where I'm going with this?
//Also that way we win by keeping troops in the region, which is our goal.
/Granted we don't have to fire a shot more for that but ...


We could always look at the bright side... If we reduced the Iraqi infrastructure to a pen and pencil operation, and their ability to make war to that of "how far can we travel in a day on the water we carry". They will stop their nuclear program as they will have to build their infrastructure back up first. That should settle things down in the region. I don't think there would be a need for any additional troop involvement.

/JMHO
 
2012-05-04 10:50:09 AM

bubo_sibiricus: vernonFL: Has ANYONE ever successfully conquered Afghanistan? The Greeks? The Mongols? The British? The Soviets?

No. That's why they call it the land where empires go to die.


Herp. Derp. The US isn't trying to conquer Afghanistan.

And BTW, the US has been very successful againt al q and the taliban in Afghanistan. That's fact. It's the political culture that bogs us down. It's not the terrain, as cavernous as it is.
 
2012-05-04 10:50:54 AM

liam76: They have the right to vote. fo course they can only vote for candidates who have been approved by the theocratic council that actually runs things.


So they're Republicans?
 
2012-05-04 10:57:31 AM

enforcerpsu: bubo_sibiricus: vernonFL: Has ANYONE ever successfully conquered Afghanistan? The Greeks? The Mongols? The British? The Soviets?

No. That's why they call it the land where empires go to die.

Herp. Derp. The US isn't trying to conquer Afghanistan.

And BTW, the US has been very successful againt al q and the taliban in Afghanistan. That's fact. It's the political culture that bogs us down. It's not the terrain, as cavernous as it is.


I'd have to say the biggest bog we have is islam, it breeds retardation
 
2012-05-04 10:58:14 AM

Fista-Phobia: bubo_sibiricus: People who argued that war with either of these countries was going to be a quagmire were laughed at and shouted down by...

[www.veteranstoday.com image 500x400]


And the curious part is the very guy who said it would be unworkable, and even used the word "quagmire" is bottom center on this picture. I still shudder when I watch that interview where he spells out EXACTLY what ended up happening a decade later.
 
2012-05-04 11:00:15 AM

liam76: JackieRabbit: The rank and file there are secularist and don't like the current Islamist regime on jot.

The green revolution doesn't agree.

Yes there is a fair amounf of peopel who don't like the regime, I have some buddies from Iran who hated it, but that isn't the consensous.

Taking otu the ayatollah's would lead to a bloody revolution, or create more ani-american sentiment and cement the countries hardliners in power.


You know that we have had a backdoor diplomatic effort ongoing in Iran for nearly three decades? Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Everyman there doesn't like this Islamist system, which was largely foisted on them from outside arab influences. I've known several Iranians. We have quite a few in this area. They don't like what has happened in their country. I don't disagree with you that, after over 30 years of Islamist occupation, the indoctrination is widespread and pervasive and that military action would probably be disastrous, especially if it is unilateral on the part of the US and Israel. And I know that the US will not do this unless Iran provokes such an action. Bush may have been an idiot who was lead by the nose by the PNAC, but Barack Obama isn't.
 
2012-05-04 11:00:50 AM
What are we supposed to be pissed at them about, anyway? I say let them have their sandbox. If they try to bully that Jewish kid, let him deal with it.
 
2012-05-04 11:03:59 AM

Joe Blowme: enforcerpsu: bubo_sibiricus: vernonFL: Has ANYONE ever successfully conquered Afghanistan? The Greeks? The Mongols? The British? The Soviets?

No. That's why they call it the land where empires go to die.

Herp. Derp. The US isn't trying to conquer Afghanistan.

And BTW, the US has been very successful againt al q and the taliban in Afghanistan. That's fact. It's the political culture that bogs us down. It's not the terrain, as cavernous as it is.

I'd have to say the biggest bog we have is islam, it breeds retardation


Well...in some ways yes. I know a few folks here that are Islamic but they certainly don't feel the way that the fundamentalists do.
 
2012-05-04 11:08:24 AM

JackieRabbit: liam76: JackieRabbit: The rank and file there are secularist and don't like the current Islamist regime on jot.

The green revolution doesn't agree.

Yes there is a fair amounf of peopel who don't like the regime, I have some buddies from Iran who hated it, but that isn't the consensous.

Taking otu the ayatollah's would lead to a bloody revolution, or create more ani-american sentiment and cement the countries hardliners in power.

You know that we have had a backdoor diplomatic effort ongoing in Iran for nearly three decades? Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Everyman there doesn't like this Islamist system, which was largely foisted on them from outside arab influences. I've known several Iranians. We have quite a few in this area. They don't like what has happened in their country. I don't disagree with you that, after over 30 years of Islamist occupation, the indoctrination is widespread and pervasive and that military action would probably be disastrous, especially if it is unilateral on the part of the US and Israel. And I know that the US will not do this unless Iran provokes such an action. Bush may have been an idiot who was lead by the nose by the PNAC, but Barack Obama isn't.


But Romney will be. And he may very well be president soon.
 
2012-05-04 11:08:46 AM

vossiewulf: Tarkus: It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Three weeks before any recognizable command and control disappears, another three to finish off anything resembling organized conventional resistance. Something like 100,000 refugees, min 50-75k dead in first year, min 7 years of occupation costing trillions and a few thousand Americans along with another 50-100k civilian dead.

Sounds awesome.


No one is suggesting occupying Iran.
 
2012-05-04 11:09:35 AM
Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "Occupy a country and replace its despot with a democracy" and "Defeat militarily"?
 
2012-05-04 11:13:05 AM

meanmutton: Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "Occupy a country and replace its despot with a democracy" and "Defeat militarily"?


We destroyed Iraq's military in the first Gulf War. As I recall, that wasn't enough for some people.

What makes you thing it will be enough in Iran?
 
2012-05-04 11:14:41 AM

enforcerpsu: Joe Blowme: enforcerpsu: bubo_sibiricus: vernonFL: Has ANYONE ever successfully conquered Afghanistan? The Greeks? The Mongols? The British? The Soviets?

No. That's why they call it the land where empires go to die.

Herp. Derp. The US isn't trying to conquer Afghanistan.

And BTW, the US has been very successful againt al q and the taliban in Afghanistan. That's fact. It's the political culture that bogs us down. It's not the terrain, as cavernous as it is.

I'd have to say the biggest bog we have is islam, it breeds retardation

Well...in some ways yes. I know a few folks here that are Islamic but they certainly don't feel the way that the fundamentalists do.


It is in dire need of a reformation. I have friends who have escaped from iran and they tell some hellish tales.
 
2012-05-04 11:23:43 AM

JackieRabbit: BigBooper: mbillips: grimlock1972: 3 weeks? might be enough to smash their Military ( navy about 30 minutes ) but considerable longer dealing with Islamic insurgents lead by the ousted clerics as there is no way they are going to give up the power they hold with out a long protracted fight.

RTFA. Nobody is talking about defeating Iran's government. They're talking about eliminating Iran as a threat to Israel and shipping in the Persian Gulf. And only in the event of Iran STARTING a fight.

It depends when this goes down. If Obama orders the strikes, I have no doubt that he would go head hunting. He's proven that he's more than willing to hunt down and kill America's enemies. Think of the fallout if he could achieve regime change with no boots on the ground.... Other than a handful of special forces of course.

/I hear Chuck Norris trained a unit of Seals
//The only weapon they carry into battle is the roundhouse kick

The president is not going to attack Iran without provocation.


You're right. The most likely scenario is that Israel attacks Iran's Nuclear facilities, and Iran responds by attempting to close the straight of Hormuz and possibly attacking US bases in the region. Of course at that point, the President will have no choice but to let slip the dogs of war.

Of course if Iran keeps its military response limited to Israel, then we probably sit it out.
 
2012-05-04 11:28:59 AM

Tor_Eckman: meanmutton: Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "Occupy a country and replace its despot with a democracy" and "Defeat militarily"?

We destroyed Iraq's military in the first Gulf War. As I recall, that wasn't enough for some people.

What makes you thing it will be enough in Iran?


Apparently some people just don't get it...

WE DON'T NEED TO OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRY TO ACHIEVE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

/Is that CLEAR enough for you now?
 
2012-05-04 11:30:21 AM

OhioUGrad: Aar1012: SilentStrider: Mentat: SilentStrider: Would it pay for itself too?

Only if we cut taxes. I'm always surprised that people don't get that part.

Silly me. You're right.

All we have to do is shift some money from the Dept of Education, NPR, and PBS and we'll be in the black for a decade!

You forgot Planned Parenthood...remember, after all they are aborting future soldiers.


It's comments like this that cause me and countless millions of others to laugh when we hear the name 'Ohio University' and 'education' used in the same sentence.

It also explains why the coach of the University of Michigan football teams calls The Ohio State University "Ohio" as an insult.
 
2012-05-04 11:31:46 AM

CasperImproved: Tor_Eckman: meanmutton: Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "Occupy a country and replace its despot with a democracy" and "Defeat militarily"?

We destroyed Iraq's military in the first Gulf War. As I recall, that wasn't enough for some people.

What makes you thing it will be enough in Iran?

Apparently some people just don't get it...

WE DON'T NEED TO OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRY TO ACHIEVE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

/Is that CLEAR enough for you now?


Of course. Now that you have used the power of ALLCAPS I get it.

But it didn't answer my question.

Or are you just being snarky? I can't even tell anymore.
 
2012-05-04 11:35:29 AM

Tor_Eckman: CasperImproved: Tor_Eckman: meanmutton: Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "Occupy a country and replace its despot with a democracy" and "Defeat militarily"?

We destroyed Iraq's military in the first Gulf War. As I recall, that wasn't enough for some people.

What makes you thing it will be enough in Iran?

Apparently some people just don't get it...

WE DON'T NEED TO OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRY TO ACHIEVE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

/Is that CLEAR enough for you now?

Of course. Now that you have used the power of ALLCAPS I get it.

But it didn't answer my question.

Or are you just being snarky? I can't even tell anymore.


Careful. He used ALLCAPS. He's a man on the edge.
 
2012-05-04 11:35:41 AM

violentsalvation: Depends what you consider victory, toppling the regime? probably doable. But the next 20 years would suck.


Sure, we could crush them real quick. Let's just not stick around and rebuild them for 20 years.
 
2012-05-04 11:40:05 AM
We just need to set up some more permanent military bases on Muslim holy land to diffuse the tension
 
2012-05-04 11:42:24 AM

Nightsweat: So if the Brits had stomped us as we wiped out Indian nations....?




You must have completely missed the point I made in my previous comment: it's not "imperialism" to attack a country in order to oust a leader who has threatened an entire nation with genocide. One could argue it's not our place to intervene, but that doesn't change the fact it's not imperialism.

Our taking of North America WAS imperialism. So--even though cultural standards were accepting to imperialism in that time period (along with slavery, oppression of women, and blood-letting)--by TODAY'S standards the Brits would have had a right to attack us for slaughtering Native Americans . . . but given the cultural differences between the centuries passed: it's a pretty stupid point to argue . . .

Besides, they attacked us because we broke free from their empire--not because we stole this land from the natives.
 
2012-05-04 11:43:28 AM

MrBallou: Tor_Eckman: CasperImproved: Tor_Eckman: meanmutton: Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "Occupy a country and replace its despot with a democracy" and "Defeat militarily"?

We destroyed Iraq's military in the first Gulf War. As I recall, that wasn't enough for some people.

What makes you thing it will be enough in Iran?

Apparently some people just don't get it...

WE DON'T NEED TO OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRY TO ACHIEVE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

/Is that CLEAR enough for you now?

Of course. Now that you have used the power of ALLCAPS I get it.

But it didn't answer my question.

Or are you just being snarky? I can't even tell anymore.

Careful. He used ALLCAPS. He's a man on the edge.


Now THAT'S snarky... :)
 
2012-05-04 11:49:13 AM

vernonFL: Dahnkster: Fartbongso says the progressives are all cool with another 12 years in Afghanistan

Has ANYONE ever successfully conquered Afghanistan? The Greeks? The Mongols? The British? The Soviets?

In 300 BC, Alexander the Great was like ""Lets get the fark out of here"

In 1840, the British position on Afghanistan was "Lets get the fark out of here"

In 1988, the Soviet position on Afghanistan was "Lets get the fark out of here"

/Fun Fact: The Greeks left two things in Afghanistan: Blond haired light skinned people, and homosexuality


[www.musarium.com image 230x350]



And of course, there's this girl, the most famous hauntingly blue eyed Afghan :

blog.richardslowry.com


Fun Fact 2: When the Mongols dropped by for a visit in the 13th century, they left behind people who look like this:

img708.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-04 11:49:47 AM

cman: I call bullshiat.

After Iraq, if there is one thing that we should have learned, it is that there are too many damned variables to be able to make these kinds of predictions.


you're right... most people still think in the old cold war doctrine... these days we have to think of the aftermath as well.....i.e and then what? stay there for another 25 farking years after that?!?!?!?

Winning the war is the easy part. A squadron of F-22s can wipe out the entire Iranian air force in 3 days! and a Carrier Battle Group can take out everything else in another 2 weeks.
The hard part is what the fark do you do after you diminished another country's military? Shooting tanks, ships and planes.... the US military is second to none.
However how do we deal with 20 million Iranians armed with small arms, baseball bats and IEDs?

Or worst yet as crazy as Ahmedinejad is if you deplete a country's military to ashes there is always a big risk of fundamental Islamist taking over making the country 100X more dangerous than it was before for our children to fight with 20 years from now.
 
2012-05-04 11:51:49 AM

Little.Alex: I was sitting in the airport in Istanbul about 2 years ago. I'm on a metal bench, with 5 young guys in cheap suits.


The Why Not Guy: Little.Alex: I just think it's a good story.

Oh, and did you know that it's perfectly legal to own a gun in Iran? You can even carry in plain view in public spaces with a permit, so their breathless admiration of our second amendment rights seems a bit made up odd.


How do I know you suck at geography and/or reading comprehension?

/not Constantinople
 
2012-05-04 11:55:28 AM

SuperNinjaToad: However how do we deal with 20 million Iranians armed with small arms, baseball bats and IEDs?


Um..... Once their military is gone, why would we put troops on the ground?

Pro Tip: We won't
 
2012-05-04 11:57:29 AM
Iraq and Afghanistan were nasty.
I vote we pass on this particular Middle Eastern war.
 
2012-05-04 11:58:01 AM

hdhale: OhioUGrad: Aar1012: SilentStrider: Mentat: SilentStrider: Would it pay for itself too?

Only if we cut taxes. I'm always surprised that people don't get that part.

Silly me. You're right.

All we have to do is shift some money from the Dept of Education, NPR, and PBS and we'll be in the black for a decade!

You forgot Planned Parenthood...remember, after all they are aborting future soldiers.

It's comments like this that cause me and countless millions of others to laugh when we hear the name 'Ohio University' and 'education' used in the same sentence.

It also explains why the coach of the University of Michigan football teams calls The Ohio State University "Ohio" as an insult.


Why, because you have no sense of humor? "Millions of others to laugh" really? Considering it's constantly a top rated university (academically, not just for partying). And no, Hoke is just an idiot who doesn't know the difference...but hey, thanks for the laugh, always good on a Friday afternoon!!
 
2012-05-04 12:03:44 PM

CasperImproved: MrBallou: Tor_Eckman: CasperImproved: Tor_Eckman: meanmutton: Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "Occupy a country and replace its despot with a democracy" and "Defeat militarily"?

We destroyed Iraq's military in the first Gulf War. As I recall, that wasn't enough for some people.

What makes you thing it will be enough in Iran?

Apparently some people just don't get it...

WE DON'T NEED TO OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRY TO ACHIEVE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

/Is that CLEAR enough for you now?

Of course. Now that you have used the power of ALLCAPS I get it.

But it didn't answer my question.

Or are you just being snarky? I can't even tell anymore.

Careful. He used ALLCAPS. He's a man on the edge.

Now THAT'S snarky... :)


No offense. (:

You're right, but I sure hope we stop the chest thumping and nobody shoots at anybody.
 
2012-05-04 12:07:30 PM
Sure, we're running out of wars. We need another one to justify the $600 billion defense department.
 
2012-05-04 12:27:49 PM

BigBooper: SuperNinjaToad: However how do we deal with 20 million Iranians armed with small arms, baseball bats and IEDs?

Um..... Once their military is gone, why would we put troops on the ground?

Pro Tip: We won't


Pro Tip: you need to read the rest of my post. This is not the 12th century. You don;t just wipe out a sovereign country's military and then leave. The negative repercussions to the US would be far greater.
 
2012-05-04 12:27:58 PM

im14u2c: How do I know you suck at geography and/or reading comprehension? /not Constantinople


If you had kept reading his story you'd have seen this piece of information.

"We are Iranian engineers working here"

So. What was it you were saying about reading comprehension?
 
2012-05-04 12:39:01 PM
fkyou.jpeg
 
2012-05-04 12:41:36 PM

The Why Not Guy: So. What was it you were saying about reading comprehension?


Ok, touché.
 
2012-05-04 12:43:31 PM

im14u2c: Ok, touché.


I'd have spelled it with a d but whatever.
 
2012-05-04 12:50:23 PM

The Why Not Guy: I'd have spelled it with a d but whatever.


I could call you a douche if you'd like, but it's really not my thing.
 
2012-05-04 01:00:10 PM
sounds like the pentagon might like my project management style and i should go apply for a job there
 
kgf
2012-05-04 01:00:10 PM
For all you doubters, remember that it took only days to defeat Iraq the first time, and a few weeks to successfully make a complete invasion of Iraq the second time, and Iraq's military was far better than Iran's. Occupying and subduing a country is far different than defeating its military and this claim is in regard to defeating their military only. There is no country in the world today that can defeat our military in a conventional war. Russia is a paper tiger and China's only hope would be to overwhelm us with sheer numbers. That may have worked against WWII-era weapons in 1950, but not today.
 
2012-05-04 01:02:50 PM

im14u2c: I could call you a douche if you'd like, but it's really not my thing.


Yes, you've already proven how courteous you are even when you're flat out wrong. Tell me again how I can't read?
 
2012-05-04 01:11:15 PM

The Why Not Guy: Yes, you've already proven how courteous you are even when you're flat out wrong. Tell me again how I can't read?


I did say "touché", which was recognizing your correctness and skill in pointing out my error. You do know what touché means, right? It's what one fencer says to another when the other lands a blow, in recognition of the skill. I was complimenting you on catching me in error.

You're the one that brought up "douche."
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report