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.

(CNN)   Best Korea has already won (in their minds)   (cnn.com) divider line 100
    More: Interesting, North Koreans, World Politics Review, saber-rattling, international aid, Yeonpyeong, world leaders, natural resource economics, Changing the Game  
•       •       •

17143 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Apr 2013 at 7:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-13 04:05:39 PM
I have to agree, if everything stopped right now, Best Korea will have won. Every two-bit dictator will know that getting nuclear weapons and ignoring the UN is the way to go. No repercussions.
 
2013-04-13 04:25:50 PM
www.aim.org

"I WILL DESTROY YOU WITH MY MIND!!!"
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-04-13 05:13:39 PM
North Korea helped Syria develop a nuclear reactor. It has sold missile technology and weapons to anyone willing to pay, and it has developed close cooperation with Iran.

This could be a pretty ugly game changer. If it's true.Time for China to step up it's game before we have to.

/Don't forget, Putin don't play that.
 
2013-04-13 05:42:12 PM

Loose_Cannon: I have to agree, if everything stopped right now, Best Korea will have won. Every two-bit dictator will know that getting nuclear weapons and ignoring the UN is the way to go. No repercussions.


Ghost of Saddam Hussein is thinking "If I actually had WMD they would have left me alone".
 
2013-04-13 06:50:25 PM
Best Korea will claim it one because thanks to all their talk and actions, no one dared to attack. Victorious again!

They've done that over and over.

But who know with junior at the helm.
 
2013-04-13 07:00:55 PM
Nothing Is being done to North Korea, not because they may have Nukes, but because of the amount of damage its believed they can do to Seoul using conventional artillery, and because North Korea and China have a mutual defense pact.  North Korea acting crazy and thumbing their nose at the west is not something that started with Un, or even his father Il, this started with their grandfather, long before they started playing with Nukes.

The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.
 
2013-04-13 07:09:43 PM
If North Korea were to have a ugly nuclear 'accident', this and all other wanna-be rogue nuke states simply go away...
 
2013-04-13 07:45:08 PM

Tigger: Ghost of Saddam Hussein is thinking "If I actually had WMD they would have left me alone".


I was thinking something along those lines too.

ShawnDoc: The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.


I've been getting the (possibly false) impression from the news lately that even China is getting tired of these farkers.
 
2013-04-13 07:57:05 PM
Considering that this is likely to end with Korea backing down but not really giving up anything in exchange for food, probably.  Once they made a point to not fire those rockets after setting them up, they're almost certainly going to eventually back down.
 
2013-04-13 07:57:36 PM

Via Infinito: ShawnDoc: The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China. Nukes or no nukes.

I've been getting the (possibly false) impression from the news lately that even China is getting tired of these farkers.


Yup.  But that's a rather new development.  And technically they still have a mutual defense pact with N.Korea, plus they don't want a US backed Korean government on their doorstep.
 
2013-04-13 08:03:33 PM
cdn3.vtourist.com

ALREADY WON
 
2013-04-13 08:08:04 PM

ShawnDoc: plus they don't want a US backed Korean government on their doorstep.


How is South Korea not already on their doorstep? Do you think a Land border is somehow less desirable than what they already have? Beijing isn't hardly any farther from Pyongyang than Seoul. IE: really close to both anyway.

South Korea and China already do a metric farkton of business together. Which do you think China values more? Expanding and continuing that, or a silly border paranoia. Imagine the border boom that would happen if SK took over the North. China cares about trade and regional stability(as long as it's ass is kissed as the biggest mofo on the block).
 
2013-04-13 08:11:38 PM
In the short term?  Yes, if Un stops instigating and goes back to 'business as usual' right now, then the NK government will be called the 'winner' of all this.

But they've pissed off the US 'and' China 'and' Japan.  The US military now has a prime reason to hang out in the Asian sphere and 'that' has the Chinese quietly furious.  The NK government is going to find itself having a 'bad' time over this spat in the long term.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-04-13 08:12:25 PM

GAT_00: Considering that this is likely to end with Korea backing down but not really giving up anything in exchange for food, probably.  Once they made a point to not fire those rockets after setting them up, they're almost certainly going to eventually back down.


You're taking this from the perspective of the "common" people. The problem is, they never get the food sent to them from other countries (like ours for example). They still go hungry, and their leaders live in the lap of luxury.

The real problem is that little un-gonnagetadicksomeday doesn't really care that his people are trying to just simply live on the bark of trees.

It never touches him, but pisses off everyone else.
 
2013-04-13 08:13:33 PM

ShawnDoc: Nothing Is being done to North Korea, not because they may have Nukes, but because of the amount of damage its believed they can do to Seoul using conventional artillery, and because North Korea and China have a mutual defense pact.  North Korea acting crazy and thumbing their nose at the west is not something that started with Un, or even his father Il, this started with their grandfather, long before they started playing with Nukes.

The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.


So how many people in North Korea have died because Truman was a douche and held back Macarthur?  How many more people will die from this due to the tech the norks are selling?  Let hitler/polpot mark2 run rampant.  To be fair Ike shouldve nuked 'em as soon as he took office.  Might've stopped 'nam if uncle ho saw the us was willing to just nuke up and coming commie lands.
/after the holocaust people said never again to genocides yet...
 
2013-04-13 08:14:31 PM
If NK gets some concessions, then they win.  If they launch a missile over Japan with no retaliation, then they win.  If they launch a missile but not over Japan after announcing their intention to, then they lose a little.  If they stop now with no concessions or conflict, then they lose a littleIf they launch a missile and it gets shot down or fails, they lose big time (With the added benefit of Iran and other nuclear wannabes shiatting their pants).  If this escalates into a full con flit, they just farking lose (along with millions of innocent NKs and SKs).
 
2013-04-13 08:14:50 PM

Loose_Cannon: I have to agree, if everything stopped right now, Best Korea will have won. Every two-bit dictator will know that getting nuclear weapons and ignoring the UN is the way to go. No repercussions.


What I never understood is why countries with nukes feel they have the right to tell other countries they can't have nukes.
 
2013-04-13 08:16:18 PM
When you have a nuclear arsenal, countries that could topple your regime with a tiny fraction of their power suddenly become afraid of making you angry.

This is not the take away at all from North Korea acting a little more flippant than usual. We of course approach with all due caution, but we do this for concern for allies in the area, civilians and inevitable refugees, and necessity of military force. Does anyone believe North Korea is acting this way for reasons other than 'tiny dog syndrome'? Problem is, we do not want to make the yapping little country bite simply because we're bigger; we do as any sane person would and walk around.
 
2013-04-13 08:16:49 PM

ShawnDoc: Nothing Is being done to North Korea, not because they may have Nukes, but because of the amount of damage its believed they can do to Seoul using conventional artillery, and because North Korea and China have a mutual defense pact.  North Korea acting crazy and thumbing their nose at the west is not something that started with Un, or even his father Il, this started with their grandfather, long before they started playing with Nukes.

The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.


There are good, reliable estimates that the damage to Seoul would be maybe 30k dead and injured. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but hardly the catastrophe people make it out to be. And that's a worst case scenario.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-04-13 08:20:56 PM

srhp29: Loose_Cannon: I have to agree, if everything stopped right now, Best Korea will have won. Every two-bit dictator will know that getting nuclear weapons and ignoring the UN is the way to go. No repercussions.

What I never understood is why countries with nukes feel they have the right to tell other countries they can't have nukes.


That's a VERY good question.

The problem is that it isn't just going to go away. We, and many others are trying to diffuse this. But for right now, it doesn't look like it's working.
 
2013-04-13 08:24:17 PM
I have a feeling SOMEBODY (no necessarily BK) is about to get beat down. They need to deter either BK from selling nuke technology to people or deter people from buying it from them. IMO, at this stage in the game, you can't just hit the 'pause' button on the current scenario.
 
2013-04-13 08:24:33 PM

Via Infinito: Tigger: Ghost of Saddam Hussein is thinking "If I actually had WMD they would have left me alone".

I was thinking something along those lines too.

ShawnDoc: The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.

I've been getting the (possibly false) impression from the news lately that even China is getting tired of these farkers.



I think They are smarter than we give them credit for.  All that has been done so far is some very light missile tests and a probably fake nuke signature.

I'm putting money on China telling NK to act out, so the US can come to China for an agreement.  It puts China in more of a position of power than it had earlier - and those conniving bastards will do ANYTHING to get ahead.
 
2013-04-13 08:27:41 PM

joylessFark: If NK gets some concessions, then they win.  If they launch a missile over Japan with no retaliation, then they win.  If they launch a missile but not over Japan after announcing their intention to, then they lose a little.  If they stop now with no concessions or conflict, then they lose a littleIf they launch a missile and it gets shot down or fails, they lose big time (With the added benefit of Iran and other nuclear wannabes shiatting their pants).  If this escalates into a full con flit, they just farking lose (along with millions of innocent NKs and SKs).


I really want them to shoot a dummy missile over Japan and have it successfully shot down by Japan.
 
2013-04-13 08:32:42 PM
China has already signaled the likelihood of their coming to the Norks defense through it's signing on to the latest rounds of UN sanctions made after the Norks decided to test a nuke. If they start (restart) a war by attacking anything it's becoming very unlikely that the Chinese will come to their defense. They only got involved the last time when the Norks were getting their butts handed to them and it looked like MacArthur was going to cross into their country while chasing them down (and to be fair he probably would have). Times and the situation have changed dramatically. China may just sit on the sidelines and watch or even become the anvil that the UN hammer can bring down on the Norks. Then when the dust has settled make a buffer zone (call it a 50 mile wide swath of the former North Korea) between whatever the new Korea is called and themselves. Hell, they might even make it a special economic zone to facilitate trade.

Maoism is dead in China and that will make all of the difference in the end. The only way that they will do anything other than perhaps a defense of the Norks at their border is if the other side shoots first. I'm willing to bet that the recent diplomatic talks have even covered these possible eventualities and what the end game may be.
 
2013-04-13 08:36:03 PM

srhp29: Loose_Cannon: I have to agree, if everything stopped right now, Best Korea will have won. Every two-bit dictator will know that getting nuclear weapons and ignoring the UN is the way to go. No repercussions.

What I never understood is why countries with nukes feel they have the right to tell other countries they can't have nukes.


It's one thing for a country like Canada or Brazil to develop nukes. It's another to have a country that threatens to use them against others develop them, or a country that sells weapons to known terrorist organizations develop them.  The stability of the government of a country also plays a role in the equation.
 
2013-04-13 08:37:06 PM

Radioactive Ass: Hell, they might even make it a special economic zone to facilitate trade.


I find this extremely likely to some degree or another. China already does a huge amount of trade with SK, fairly amicably.
 
2013-04-13 08:40:55 PM
it's 09.30 on the 14th over there now. 15th is kim il-sung's birthday and a big holiday. hopefully they have decided that they are already in the best negotiating position they are likely to be in
 
2013-04-13 08:43:49 PM

srhp29: What I never understood is why countries with nukes feel they have the right to tell other countries they can't have nukes.


It has more to do with who they are than what they may have. Nukes for "Defensive" use by stable nations is one thing. Nukes for someone who is seen as someone likely to use them to threaten others another. You can usually determine who is going to fall into the latter category by their past actions. For example, nobody really cares about Israels nukes because they don't wave them around and say that they are going to use them if you don't give them a case of Hennessy brandy.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2013-04-13 08:46:54 PM

GAT_00: Considering that this is likely to end with Korea backing down but not really giving up anything in exchange for food, probably.  Once they made a point to not fire those rockets after setting them up, they're almost certainly going to eventually back down.


That would be the logical move. I just wouldn't count on them to make it
 
2013-04-13 08:49:59 PM
Aren't we supposed to have the capability of shooting missiles down while they're in flight?

I seem to recall someone mentioning that some years ago. And then we went into Kuwait with smaller versions that shot down Skud missiles from the ground. There was speculation on a weapons system that could knock out a ballistic missile before it got too close.

The problem was, back then, during the cold war, if Nuclear War happened, we'd be facing scores of nukes from all sides. N. Korea has, what, 4?

Most nukes will not arm themselves until they're essentially right on top of their targets either, so destroying a missile should not set off the warhead.

NK has a 'million man' army but they have got to be aware that the UN has enough sophisticated weapons to nullify much of that army before it can actually get rolling. Not like in WW2, where we had thousands of active troops scattered all over the globe, all with their own transport systems, protected by the Air Force and Navy.

We've also got Boomers out in the ocean, each with major nuclear capacity -- which by now are probably just off shore of NK.

I'm wondering why the NK military just has not taken Fat Boy out. They could probably run the country better than he can. If he starts a war, they're looking at nearly a 40% casualty rate within the first few months, of the soldiers alone and I figure their 'Navy' and 'Air force' will be gone within a week.

Not to mention that NK will loose and Fat Boy along with his main military advisors will be in line for execution. There will be no prolonged ground war like back in the 50's.

That's the problem with hereditary rulers; they're brought up being convinced they're better than everyone else, nearly gods and have little compassion for the regular folks they rule over.

After all, the regular folks are expendable.
 
2013-04-13 08:51:11 PM

JDJoeE: So how many people in North Korea have died because Truman was a douche and held back Macarthur? How many more people will die from this due to the tech the norks are selling? Let hitler/polpot mark2 run rampant. To be fair Ike shouldve nuked 'em as soon as he took office. Might've stopped 'nam if uncle ho saw the us was willing to just nuke up and coming commie lands.
/after the holocaust people said never again to genocides yet...


Oh, for fark's sake, don't even go there, not even as a troll.
 
2013-04-13 08:53:26 PM

Lusiphur: ShawnDoc: Nothing Is being done to North Korea, not because they may have Nukes, but because of the amount of damage its believed they can do to Seoul using conventional artillery, and because North Korea and China have a mutual defense pact.  North Korea acting crazy and thumbing their nose at the west is not something that started with Un, or even his father Il, this started with their grandfather, long before they started playing with Nukes.

The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.

There are good, reliable estimates that the damage to Seoul would be maybe 30k dead and injured. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but hardly the catastrophe people make it out to be. And that's a worst case scenario.


I think the real reason Seoul doesn't want to go to war is that they'll win, easily, in about a month's time, and then they'll have a massive refugee crisis on their hands.  Yeah, they'll sustain a bit of damage too -- nothing to sneeze at, like you say -- but that's almost secondary.
 
2013-04-13 08:56:33 PM

Radioactive Ass: Then when the dust has settled make a buffer zone (call it a 50 mile wide swath of the former North Korea) between whatever the new Korea is called and themselves. Hell, they might even make it a special economic zone to facilitate trade.


I'm no expert, but I think that both North and South Korea simply refer to themselves as "Korea", just that one is the "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea and the other is simply "Republic of Korea". I sort of see it as more of a schism situation than an actual desire to be two different nations on the same peninsula.

Bisu: srhp29: Loose_Cannon: I have to agree, if everything stopped right now, Best Korea will have won. Every two-bit dictator will know that getting nuclear weapons and ignoring the UN is the way to go. No repercussions.

What I never understood is why countries with nukes feel they have the right to tell other countries they can't have nukes.

It's one thing for a country like Canada or Brazil to develop nukes. It's another to have a country that threatens to use them against others develop them, or a country that sells weapons to known terrorist organizations develop them.  The stability of the government of a country also plays a role in the equation.


Well said. I'm all for the concept of fairness to the degree that it can be applied both ethically and morally. The U.S. has flaws...hell, major flaws. And, though we're not as "free" as we might like to think, our human rights situation in generally is several orders of magnitude better than Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc.

We tend to dwell on the down side of North Korea having long-range nuclear capabilities. What's the up side?
 
2013-04-13 08:59:29 PM
Sadly I think the only way this situation is ever going to get better is if some two-bit nation finally uses a nuke on someone else. Everyone on this planet seems to have forgotten what nuclear weapons are capable of. Maybe photographs of thousands of dead bodies and burned and radiation scarred children will wake some of these bastards up.
 
2013-04-13 09:00:27 PM

Radioactive Ass: For example, nobody really cares about Israels nukes because they don't wave them around and say that they are going to use them if you don't give them a case of Hennessy brandy.


Also not allowed to have nukes:

onemansblog.com
 
2013-04-13 09:01:26 PM

Old enough to know better: Sadly I think the only way this situation is ever going to get better is if some two-bit nation finally uses a nuke on someone else. Everyone on this planet seems to have forgotten what nuclear weapons are capable of. Maybe photographs of thousands of dead bodies and burned and radiation scarred children will wake some of these bastards up.


They need J.J. Abrams to remake "The Day After..." with lots of lens flare and twitter users skin sloughing off from radiation burns.
 
2013-04-13 09:03:59 PM

Lusiphur: ShawnDoc: Nothing Is being done to North Korea, not because they may have Nukes, but because of the amount of damage its believed they can do to Seoul using conventional artillery, and because North Korea and China have a mutual defense pact.  North Korea acting crazy and thumbing their nose at the west is not something that started with Un, or even his father Il, this started with their grandfather, long before they started playing with Nukes.

The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.

There are good, reliable estimates that the damage to Seoul would be maybe 30k dead and injured. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but hardly the catastrophe people make it out to be. And that's a worst case scenario.


So ten times the civilian deaths of 9/11 is hardly a catastrophe?  Or was 9/11 just one tenth of a catastrophe?

/Just trying to get the math here . . .
 
2013-04-13 09:04:04 PM

KiwDaWabbit: I'm no expert, but I think that both North and South Korea simply refer to themselves as "Korea", just that one is the "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea and the other is simply "Republic of Korea". I sort of see it as more of a schism situation than an actual desire to be two different nations on the same peninsula.


It would most likely be called Korea however there's always a chance that they decide to call it something else with Korea in it's name not unlike what they do now.
 
2013-04-13 09:08:03 PM

TommyDeuce: So ten times the civilian deaths of 9/11 is hardly a catastrophe? Or was 9/11 just one tenth of a catastrophe?

/Just trying to get the math here . . .


The point is that the damage wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as some people make it out to be. That's assuming that they don't go nuke and keep it down to conventional weapons of course.

This is a pretty good read on what the possibilities are.
 
2013-04-13 09:12:02 PM
As far as nukes play into this, I don't think any nation (at the highest levels) is all that worried about the fact that North Korea HAS nuclear weapons so much as they are worried about their ability to EXPORT nuclear weapons. That, I think, is a salient point that the author of the article seems to have danced around entirely. They could ship a workable weapon to any two-bit warlord running an African country but that wouldn't give the African warlord a world stage in any way approaching what NK enjoys right now, despite what the author claims.

Sure, NK could also nuke someone. One could even reasonably say they might actually nuke someone. That would be bad, though, and everyone knows it including North Korea. Obviously the diplomacy following the immediate, swift and complete destruction of their ability to ever do so again and risk of a wider conflagration while engaged in doing so are serious issues to be considered but the biggest problem with North Korea at the moment is that they are the crazy arming the crazier.
 
2013-04-13 09:15:10 PM
fta Iran, one can only imagine, must be paying close attention to the dance macabre between Pyongyang and the rest of the world. North Korea, whose entire economy is worth about $40 billion -- less than a small-sized American city and a tiny fraction of prosperous South Korea and its trillion-dollar economy -- has ordered the whole world to attention.

Meh. So do bewbies.

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-13 09:15:49 PM

TommyDeuce: So ten times the civilian deaths of 9/11 is hardly a catastrophe? Or was 9/11 just one tenth of a catastrophe?


Compared to the first Korean War?  Where 370,000 South Korean civilians died?
 
2013-04-13 09:16:41 PM

Notabunny: Meh. So do bewbies.


I have to admit...I do have the yellow fever.
 
2013-04-13 09:20:10 PM
Best thing that could possibly happen.

Now let's all go home.
 
2013-04-13 09:21:29 PM

srhp29: Loose_Cannon: I have to agree, if everything stopped right now, Best Korea will have won. Every two-bit dictator will know that getting nuclear weapons and ignoring the UN is the way to go. No repercussions.

What I never understood is why countries with nukes feel they have the right to tell other countries they can't have nukes.


Because getting nukes and ignoring the UN are the way to go. There are no repercussions.
 
2013-04-13 09:22:02 PM
i.imgur.com">

Cake!!

 
2013-04-13 09:23:39 PM

JDJoeE: ShawnDoc: Nothing Is being done to North Korea, not because they may have Nukes, but because of the amount of damage its believed they can do to Seoul using conventional artillery, and because North Korea and China have a mutual defense pact.  North Korea acting crazy and thumbing their nose at the west is not something that started with Un, or even his father Il, this started with their grandfather, long before they started playing with Nukes.

The west and South Korea don't want to risk the destruction of Seoul, nor do they want to get into a fight with China.  Nukes or no nukes.

So how many people in North Korea have died because Truman was a douche and held back Macarthur?  How many more people will die from this due to the tech the norks are selling?  Let hitler/polpot mark2 run rampant.  To be fair Ike shouldve nuked 'em as soon as he took office.  Might've stopped 'nam if uncle ho saw the us was willing to just nuke up and coming commie lands.
/after the holocaust people said never again to genocides yet...


If you are going to take the position that we should base actions on number of lives lost/affected, do not in the same breath advocate a nuclear confrontation with China.
 
2013-04-13 09:25:43 PM

Vangor: When you have a nuclear arsenal, countries that could topple your regime with a tiny fraction of their power suddenly become afraid of making you angry.

This is not the take away at all from North Korea acting a little more flippant than usual. We of course approach with all due caution, but we do this for concern for allies in the area, civilians and inevitable refugees, and necessity of military force. Does anyone believe North Korea is acting this way for reasons other than 'tiny dog syndrome'? Problem is, we do not want to make the yapping little country bite simply because we're bigger; we do as any sane person would and walk around.


Yeah, are we-is anyone--"afraid of making them angry"?? It seems to me more like everyone is laughing their asses off, or else trying to be polite about not laughing in their faces.

What it is, is that people seem to think there are only two ways to respond to this kind of aggression. One is to cower in fear & appeasement: "Oh please don't hurt us with your big nuclear warheads Mr. Kim, we'll do whatever you ask!" and the other is all-out total war to the death with the corpse defiled and burned. And if it's not the latter, in these people's minds, then it must be the former, because in their either/or world, there is no third course. So since we're not already bombing Best Korea into utter submission, they feel we must be cowering with our collective tail between our legs, afraid of making Lil' Kim angry.

There are, of course, many OTHER, better options when a Chihuahua nibbles on your ankles to either cringing in fear or grabbing a shotgun and blowing it away. You can kick it gently aside, or ask its owner to control it better, or get a bigger dog to scare it off, or just yell at it. All of these are being tried with North Korea. So try to relax, all you people stuck in 1952.
 
2013-04-13 09:26:47 PM

Notabunny: Meh. So do bewbies.


Breast Korean?

I wanted to make other comments but that was quite delightful.
 
2013-04-13 09:29:36 PM
Also, if someone can figure out what the author thinks we should do, I'm all ears.  All I could gather is that doing nothing equals North Korea "winning."  I'm not sure what we could do other than preemptive war, and I think that all reasonable people agree that is not an option.  Seems to me we've made it obvious than any real aggression (meaning not just bluster) would result in their total destruction, and I'm not sure what else there is.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report