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.

(ABC)   "Five repercussions of a military strike in Syria." Only five?   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, U.S., U.S. military, ramifications, Anthony Cordesman, Heads of state of Syria, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

5556 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-29 09:27:20 AM  

Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.


Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.
 
2013-08-29 09:28:52 AM  
*with
 
2013-08-29 09:28:53 AM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: neversubmit: Terrible table manners.

Everytime I see a picture of a prominent American in a familiar pose with some individual we later declare to be a menace, I'm reminded of those narratives of inner-city life when one kid kills a "lifelong friend" over an X-Box  or a pair of sneakers.


Okay that's sad, while I was trying to be funny. Why so serious? This is the new normal, you will be happier if you learn to live with it like Dr. Strangelove.
 
2013-08-29 09:30:10 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.

Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.



The Balkans?  Yeah, that area can always be counted on to keep themselves and their neighbors out of war.  A veritable haven of peace and tranquility, it is.
 
2013-08-29 09:31:59 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.

Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.


The only difference is the international community. The real international community. Isn't falling for that shiat anymore.

America has become predictable, and all its enemies are lying in wait where it will surely go. Will it still go there?
 
2013-08-29 09:32:03 AM  

AngryDragon: Weaver95: AngryDragon: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No matter what happens or doesn't happen, however, the US will get blamed

Which is exactly why we should stay out of it.  Let the Russians or Turks, hell ANYONE in Europe step in if this is such an imperative.

Then we get blamed for not getting involved.

If the risk of American soldiers dying drops to zero and American tax payers funding the killing of people overseas disappears, I'm OK with this.


It drops to zero in the short term, certainly. What's uncertain is what happens at the new equilibrium.

I'm not an isolationist, but this seems like a situation that we're best being sideline participants.
 
2013-08-29 09:32:29 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "When you do a military strike it often has ramifications you don't anticipate"

Only if you are bad at your job.


"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" -  Helmuth von Moltke, German Field Marshall, 1800-1891
 
2013-08-29 09:33:53 AM  

Phinn: Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.


Prime Minister Cameron has recalled Parliament to hold a vote on what action to take over Syria.

Yet our President is once again ignoring the Constitution and refusing to consult Congress before attacking another nation.

This despite the fact that both Obama and Biden were very clear when they were running for office that a President does not have the power to order attacks against nations that have not attacked us first.

Obama:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

Biden:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war . . . unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,"

Yet we are just supposed to trust these lying assholes word now?  Especially so soon after they were caught red handed lying to Congress about the NSA?
 
2013-08-29 09:34:48 AM  

Phinn: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Phinn: It was wrong when Clinton did it in Kosovo, and it's wrong now.

Kosovo and Bosnia are at least, a apt parallels to what's happening now, although in those cases it was the US *protecting* the Muslim minority and not just bombing the hell out of them. We kinda knew that it wouldn't degrade into a larger regional war.

The Balkans?  Yeah, that area can always be counted on to keep themselves and their neighbors out of war.  A veritable haven of peace and tranquility, it is.


Yeah my point was that it was already a larger regional war (or at least it had been), so it was less of an unknown. Here we have the potential for unknown spillover and response from one of Syria's historical allies (Iran).
 
2013-08-29 09:34:59 AM  

Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.


It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.
 
2013-08-29 09:35:24 AM  
6. Vidication of Iraq War?

"Syrian journalist and human rights activist Nizar Nayouf told the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf in 2004 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein smuggled his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons into Syria just prior to the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even the Pentagon acknowledged a credible source providing sound evidence that 50 trucks did indeed make this trek out of Iraq to Syria and that these trucks were of a company owned by Uday Hussein. That isn't even in question."
 
2013-08-29 09:35:57 AM  
FALSE FLAG.
Study it out.
 
2013-08-29 09:36:17 AM  

AngryDragon: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"


That's battle tactics. Ramifications of those tactics after the fact are something else.
 
2013-08-29 09:36:47 AM  

BullBearMS: Phinn: Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.

Prime Minister Cameron has recalled Parliament to hold a vote on what action to take over Syria.

Yet our President is once again ignoring the Constitution and refusing to consult Congress before attacking another nation.

This despite the fact that both Obama and Biden were very clear when they were running for office that a President does not have the power to order attacks against nations that have not attacked us first.

Obama:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation
Biden:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war . . . unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,"
Yet we are just supposed to trust these lying assholes word now?  Especially so soon after they were caught red handed lying to Congress about the NSA?


They're Democrats though, so apparently it's OK.  A Democrat would never abuse power..
 
2013-08-29 09:36:58 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Oh don't worry: new Obama-Syria scandals are already being written in the warrens of NewsCorps main offices in the 8th Circle of Hell.
 
2013-08-29 09:37:19 AM  
Time to stock up on the dry food buckets from Sams Club.
 
2013-08-29 09:39:21 AM  

Kentucky Fried Children: OldManDownDRoad: kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.

As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.

Wasn't someone pimping their stock in the Raytheon Tomahawk thread yesterday?  Methinks some farkers are trying to peddle penny stocks...


Actually, it turned up in a web development forum yesterday as a sample of truly awful writing and canned design.

" Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: KTOS) is a

specialized National Security Technology business providing

mission critical products, services and solutions for United

States National Security priorities. Kratos' core capabilities

are sophisticated engineering, manufacturing and system

integration offerings for National Security platforms and

programs. "

All the cliches are there: "mission critical," that all-purpose word "solutions," and my least favorite phrase in the English language, "core capabilities."

Oh, yeah, and "integration." Can't forget that.

And then it got stuck in my head and I spent the rest of the afternoon walking around saying "Release the Kratos!"

/I need a vacation
 
2013-08-29 09:39:26 AM  

BullBearMS: Phinn: Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that the use of military force in Iraq was approved by Congress.

Prime Minister Cameron has recalled Parliament to hold a vote on what action to take over Syria.

Yet our President is once again ignoring the Constitution and refusing to consult Congress before attacking another nation.

This despite the fact that both Obama and Biden were very clear when they were running for office that a President does not have the power to order attacks against nations that have not attacked us first.

Obama:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation
Biden:
"The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war . . . unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,"
Yet we are just supposed to trust these lying assholes word now?  Especially so soon after they were caught red handed lying to Congress about the NSA?


McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess. There's enough BS on both sides to go around.
 
2013-08-29 09:39:32 AM  

jake_lex: Slaxl: I'd like to see clear unrefutable evidence that Assad was responsible. Not because I doubt the official evidence, but because I can't put up with 10 years of conspiracy theorists and false flag claims. It does my head in. I see no reason to rush this, we've waited 3 years while they shot each other, we can wait another few weeks to prove, unequivocally, that they've started killing each other slightly differently.

While I agree I want more evidence that Assad actually did order the use of chemical weapons, even "clear unrefutable evidence" wouldn't stop the "false flag" people.  I mean, how many times have the claims of 9/11 "truthers" been dismantled and they still keep it up?


My liberal buddy refused to believe that we landed on the moon for the longest time.
He has now backed off and said that we did land there, but that we did it many years later than we claimed.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:02 AM  
Nutsac_Jim: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.


Joe DimWit said that Bush had "no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."

But you have to remember that this is the Administration of Hypocrisy....it's allowed.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:07 AM  
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
-- Senator Obama

Not that it has ever stopped them.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:32 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: My liberal buddy refused to believe that we landed on the moon for the longest time.


'Liberal buddy' is the new 'black friend'.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:54 AM  
I like how not bombing people is "isolationism". As if wonton murder is the only way the US has to interact with the world.

It would be pathetic and sad if it weren't so frightening.
 
2013-08-29 09:42:22 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.


We've already had our first Unconstitutional war under Obama in Libya.

He refused to consult Congress then too.

The nice thing about being forced to seek Congressional approval before attacking another nation that hasn't attacked us, is that you have to put your evidence down on the table for everyone to see and public debate.
 
2013-08-29 09:42:39 AM  
Maybe we'll send a nuke this time and give our troops a chance to rest for a change.

/Or maybe we can just sit this one out.
 
2013-08-29 09:44:06 AM  
We should supply both sides with chemical weapons. Problem solved!
 
2013-08-29 09:44:31 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: AngryDragon: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

That's battle tactics. Ramifications of those tactics after the fact are something else.


I read that as tactically.  Strategically...

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu, 544BC - 496BC

Rushing into a strike because we have to "DO SOMETHING" is just another disaster in the making.
 
2013-08-29 09:46:00 AM  

Ned Stark: I like how not bombing people is "isolationism". As if wonton murder is the only way the US has to interact with the world.

It would be pathetic and sad if it weren't so frightening.


img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-08-29 09:47:30 AM  

Kentucky Fried Children: OldManDownDRoad: kronicfeld: Weaver95: Yeah ok that's bad, assuming its actually what happened...but why does this concern us again?

Have to justify all that untouchable military spending somehow.

As citizens of the advanced western democracies, we face an important question - how do we profit off this war? Raytheon, GenDyn and all the usual suspects are only up slightly in their stock price. What's a boy to do?

My tip: Kratos

http://www.kratosdefense.com/

Contact your broker today. Fees may apply. Void where prohibited where law, just like the Constitution.

Wasn't someone pimping their stock in the Raytheon Tomahawk thread yesterday?  Methinks some farkers are trying to peddle penny stocks...


Must've worked somehow - traded on unusually high volume yesterday.
 
2013-08-29 09:49:18 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

It is better for the press to talk about that versus all those made up scandals.


Not sure if MSNBC is playing the tape of Joe Biden saying if the president (bush) attacked another country that did not attack the US, or be about to attack the US, that Joe Biden would do all he could to initiate impeachment.

Maybe Joe will impeach himself.


Or move to impeach Obama so he can slide into the big desk
 
2013-08-29 09:49:22 AM  
Evil Mackerel: Maybe we'll send a nuke this time and give our troops a chance to rest for a change.

/Or maybe we can just sit this one out.


Where are all the Muslim countries for this.....this is their responsiblity.  I'm looking at you Bosnia, Saudi, Kosovo, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Eastern Turkestan, Chechnya, Somalia and Afghanistan.
I understand all you Muslim leaders are sitting very fat and comfortable in your golden palaces....but why wouldn't you send troops to help your fellow Muslims?


WHY?
 
2013-08-29 09:49:34 AM  

simplicimus: McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.


Are you trying to Claim the President can't call Congress out of recess just like Cameron just called Parliament out of recess?
 
2013-08-29 09:49:38 AM  
Not our business, no threat to is. No more unprovoked wars.
 
2013-08-29 09:49:56 AM  
Everyone of you sounds like a Surrender Monkey!
 
2013-08-29 09:50:39 AM  

Muta: Everyone of you sounds like a Surrender Monkey!


Ook!
 
2013-08-29 09:53:03 AM  
simplicimus:

McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Why would a Senator call the House out of recess?
 
2013-08-29 09:53:09 AM  

AngryDragon: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu, 544BC - 496BC

Rushing into a strike because we have to "DO SOMETHING" is just another disaster in the making.


Agreed. And to be clear, i'm sure the US knows each and every group they'd be pissing off if they attacked, and their ability to retaliate. If they try to act like they didn't expect Russia and China to do something it will smell like bullshiat to everyone, because they couldn't be more obvious. Coincidentally i notice that isn't on the list of possible repercussions, and it's by far the most dire.
 
2013-08-29 09:55:43 AM  
I'm listening to the British House of Commons debate this. Seems the logic being put forth is the fact that Syria has violated the Geneva convention, an international law that GB and the US were signers as well as some of the countries that came up with it and Syria signed it, therefore they have violated international law and should be prosecuted.

That's the logic being used now. Interesting, since I don't think I've heard anyone state that they violated international law that says "no use of chemical or biological weapons on the battlefield"
 
2013-08-29 09:57:14 AM  

karnal: why wouldn't you send troops to help your fellow Muslims?


A long, long time ago after the founder of their religion passed away there was a major disagreement about who should take control. The Muslims who thought that leadership should stay in Mohammed's family became known as the Shia. The Muslims who thought the leader should be elected became known as the Sunni.

They've been killing each other over this ever since.
 
2013-08-29 09:57:24 AM  

somedude210: I'm listening to the British House of Commons debate this. Seems the logic being put forth is the fact that Syria has violated the Geneva convention, an international law that GB and the US were signers as well as some of the countries that came up with it and Syria signed it, therefore they have violated international law and should be prosecuted.

That's the logic being used now. Interesting, since I don't think I've heard anyone state that they violated international law that says "no use of chemical or biological weapons on the battlefield"


I heard it was you that used chemical weapons in Syria, in violation of international law. If i get enough people talking about, does that make it true?
 
2013-08-29 09:59:07 AM  

Joe Blowme: 6. Vidication of Iraq War?

"Syrian journalist and human rights activist Nizar Nayouf told the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf in 2004 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein smuggled his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons into Syria just prior to the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even the Pentagon acknowledged a credible source providing sound evidence that 50 trucks did indeed make this trek out of Iraq to Syria and that these trucks were of a company owned by Uday Hussein. That isn't even in question."


Dang you. Now the libtards will blame Bush for the gas in Syria.
 
2013-08-29 10:01:49 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: heard it was you that used chemical weapons in Syria, in violation of international law. If i get enough people talking about, does that make it true?


if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?

I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games
 
2013-08-29 10:04:54 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Are you trying to Claim the President can't call Congress out of recess just like Cameron just called Parliament out of recess?


He doesn't have to. Here's his legal responsibility under the War Powers Act:

"In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth-
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Congress has 60 days to take action, voting yea or nay.

dentalhilljack: simplicimus:

McConnell said Congress should discuss this and did not call the House out of recess.

Why would a Senator call the House out of recess?

My Bad, Boehner needs to call the House into session, McConnell the Senate.
 
2013-08-29 10:08:23 AM  

somedude210: J. Frank Parnell: heard it was you that used chemical weapons in Syria, in violation of international law. If i get enough people talking about, does that make it true?

if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?

I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games


Who here said that?
 
2013-08-29 10:11:28 AM  

somedude210: there is evidence that chemical weapons were used


Try listening to Mr. former UN inspector guy.

"But the second question ... is that of provenance. Where do they come from, and who authorized or directed they be used? And in my mind now, that now has become the crucial question in determining what action should be taken, if the global norm against any use of chemical weapons has been violated, which appears that it has. Who violated it, and who is responsible? And already we hear widespread arguments developing.

"Just a few moments before coming here, V.P. of the U.S. Joe Biden said he is completely satisfied that this was directed by the Assad government. ... I respect him, and he may well be satisfied, but I want to make this point to you. ... Him being completely satisfied is not the same as the evidence being made available to the world public.

"If it is the case that the evidence exists, (then) the U.S. and all people who are interested in this terrible problem need to have it demonstrated, not just stated, but demonstrated, that it is beyond doubt, incontrovertible that this was directed by the Syrian regime. And if that proves to be the case, then the whole issue of what action to be taken gets to be a whole lot clearer
."


Also, since Biden is claiming incontrovertible proof, let's remember what Biden's position on the Iraq war was.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it's important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here's Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: "He's a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security."

"We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world."

"He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power." You were emphatic about that.

Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued-they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream.


Why should we believe this retard again after he was so stupendously wrong the last time?
 
2013-08-29 10:13:49 AM  

somedude210: I just find it fascinating to listen to the debates in GB compared to here and how they actually bother debating the merits of an action instead of playing "fark that. Obama wants it so it must be bad!" games


I'm hearing that Americans are overwhelmingly farking tired of being the world's policemen and sick of warfare.  I don't think we really care who the president is.  It doesn't seem to matter anymore.
 
2013-08-29 10:14:31 AM  

simplicimus: He doesn't have to.


This is an outright lie.

As both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out when running for office.

The President has no power to attack other nations except in the case that they attack us first.

Hell, Biden threatened to impeach Bushif he attacked Iran without them attacking us first.
 
2013-08-29 10:18:28 AM  

BullBearMS: simplicimus: He doesn't have to.

This is an outright lie.

As both Senator Obama and Senator Biden pointed out when running for office.

The President has no power to attack other nations except in the case that they attack us first.

Hell, Biden threatened to impeach Bushif he attacked Iran without them attacking us first.


If you read what I posted from the War Powers Act, yeah, he does.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:05 AM  

doyner: Slaxl: doyner: Weaver95: I am still unclear on why we need to attack syria in the first place.

I'm still unclear as to why we didn't hear this level of dissent over the sound of war drums 10 years ago.

Didn't we? I distinctly remember marches and rallies millions of people big filling up cites.

I'm amazed that the level of dissent we're hearing is nothing in comparison to what we heard 10 years ago.

I was referring to our information overlords.


Ah, you may be right there then, I don't know.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:09 AM  

somedude210: if it's shown that Assad ordered the use, then there is reason to go in and arrest him for war crimes.

And there is evidence that chemical weapons were used. But if we're never going to bother adhering to and enforcing international laws that we made to combat the use of such weapons, what the hell is the point of having international law then?


My sources indicate it was you that ordered their use. Although i cannot reveal these sources for security reasons. I'm sure you understand.

But seriously, i'd suggest the entire purpose of 'international law' is to give casus belli for invasions. Why else would they ignore the majority of violations and only concern themselves with ones alleged to have happened in countries they want to attack? And chemical weapons are probably banned because simply they kill too many people too cheaply, and the military industrial complex doesn't like that. They have many equally horrible ways to kill people which are perfectly legal, so it can't realistically be an ethics thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report