# Bomb Libya.....



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

...back to the Stone Age, it isn't that far, their Islamic mindset is already in the Middle Ages.
We should have done it after Locherbie, now the West must do it to help Egypt and the other states in the region fighting IS, ironically Iraq and Syria to stop more of these barbaric IS animals from entering Europe! 

Werll done King of Jordan!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm wondering if we hadn't been so eager to get rid of Qaddafi, would things have turned out differently?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I think men on the ground is what is needed. All the Libyans need is firm leadership, not carpet-bombing. There is ample demonstration from other theatres of war that bombing alone won't work.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Agreed. There's only one way to change any situation on the ground and that is by introducing ground forces.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I hate to say it again but I said it over a year ago, "Are we really right in trying to oust Assad in Syria" Assad and the King of Jordan among others are fighting the good fight against IS.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Agreed. There's only one way to change any situation on the ground and that is by introducing ground forces.


I agree, my "Bomb Libya back to the stone age" comment was simply to get the discussion going.

What is needed (and I can only assume it hasn't happened yet because yellowbelly Barack is worried about US oil supplies) is for a HUGE combined force of EU, AU, Nato, and non-aligned militaries to put thousands of men on the ground and do this thing old school!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The Middle East is a tough neighborhood and most of the attitudes really haven't changed for centuries. Napoleon and the French found this out quickly when they tried to introduce "L' Enlightenment" in Egypt. 

Assad is a brutal dictator, but the regime is, or at least was, stable. So was Mubarek's Egypt and look at the chaos that ensued after his over throw. Thank God they have a professional military that was able to step in and restore order. The same thing needs to happen in Libya. A military strong man, hopefully one who is relatively progressive and more interested in staying in power than serving a religious ideology, needs to step in and restore order. If that happens, I think Libya should re-stabilize. 

If, however, we try to dictate terms to them and start to put conditions (women's rights, human rights, etc.) on our help then we will alienate them and either the Russians or the Chinese will be more than happy to supply them with arms and technology without similar conditions. 

At this stage, we really need to be drawing Egypt in close to us and really ramping up our diplomatic and military assistance to them, as well as Jordan.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What is needed (and I can only assume it hasn't happened yet because yellowbelly Barack is worried about US oil supplies) is for a HUGE combined force of EU, AU, Nato, and non-aligned militaries to put thousands of men on the ground and do this thing old school!


I can't see it happening unfortunately. Perhaps the French might help, possibly the Italians, but most EU countries would shy away from any military engagement, for various reasons. But securing Libya's oil production alone would make the thing worthwhile, even if oil is down to $50 a barrel or whatever.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The Middle East is a tough neighborhood and most of the attitudes really haven't changed for centuries. Napoleon and the French found this out quickly *when they tried to introduce "L' Enlightenment" in Egypt.*


Yes, by shooting prisoners en masse (including women, children old people etc) amongst other methods; that really convinced them!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yes, by shooting prisoners en masse (including women, children old people etc) amongst other methods; that really convinced them!


It was also due to them trying to break them of their adherence to religion. The point is, it's nearly impossible for one culture to try to impose it's values and belief systems on another. In fact, I don't think it's ever happened without some type of conflict breaking out.

At it's core, this is an Arab/Muslim problem and it needs to be addressed internecine. We can standby and help, offer technical and diplomatic assistance, but the actual hearts and minds campaign needs to come from them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> It was also due to them trying to break them of their adherence to religion. The point is, it's nearly impossible for one culture to try to impose it's values and belief systems on another. In fact, I don't think it's ever happened without some type of conflict breaking out.
> 
> At it's core, this is an Arab/Muslim problem and it needs to be addressed internecine. We can standby and help, offer technical and diplomatic assistance, but the actual hearts and minds campaign needs to come from them.


...OR ELSE!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...OR ELSE!!


Or else the West is capable of incredible destruction and violence, the likes of which the Middle East has been spared for the past 100 years.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> I'm wondering if we hadn't been so eager to get rid of Qaddafi, would things have turned out differently?


In retrospect, our overweening insistence on replacing Qaddafi and Hussein with "democracy" may prove in retrospect to have been massively stupid.

Geo W Bush is a terrific guy, and I'd love to have a beer with him, but like Jimmy Carter he was a disastrous naif WRT foreign policy. Obama isn't much better, but at least he hasn't bullied his way into any stupid wars.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ there's a fine line between bullying one's way into a stupid war and completely withdrawing from events with obvious national security concerns like what is going on now. In some way, BHO has done worse. He's failed to support leaders in the region who needed it and left the area to chaos. 

Iraq could have worked if we hadn't been so dead set on leaving. Our departure left a vacuum and ISIS moved in obligingly. 

This is an abject lesson in two extremes. It's just as dangerous to completely withdraw as it is to go all in. We had a pretty good run at least working with SOBs who weren't completely insane.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> In retrospect, our overweening insistence on replacing Qaddafi and Hussein with "democracy" may prove in retrospect to have been massively stupid.
> 
> Geo W Bush is a terrific guy, and I'd love to have a beer with him, but like Jimmy Carter he was a disastrous naif WRT foreign policy. Obama isn't much better, but at least he hasn't bullied his way into any stupid wars.


It always was massively stupid. Many in Europe opposed the intervention in Iraq that our political leaders were determined upon. I don't know how many in the US, as the message from the US received in Britain wasn't "complete", shall we say.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

These ISIS guys seem to like violence. We should bring them some.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> It was also due to them trying to break them of their adherence to religion. The point is, it's nearly impossible for one culture to try to impose it's values and belief systems on another. In fact, I don't think it's ever happened without some type of conflict breaking out.


Hardly, Buonaparte pretended to become a Muslim in order to win them over. His successor in Egypt, Menou, who took over after Buonaparte scarpered, leaving his loyal soldiers isolated, actually did adopt Islam.



SG_67 said:


> At it's core, this is an Arab/Muslim problem and it needs to be addressed internecine. We can standby and help, offer technical and diplomatic assistance, but the actual hearts and minds campaign needs to come from them.


Indeed. Invading and bombing just isn't effective. We tried it in the "Tribal Territories", and in Iraq, in the 1920's, and it didn't work then either.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> These ISIS guys seem to like violence. We should bring them some.


And violence always works, doesn't it? It worked for the USSR in Afghanistan, and it worked for the West in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the French in Algeria, and for the US in Vietnam. Didn't it? Surely violence must work, otherwise why would people keep advocating it?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> In retrospect, our overweening insistence on replacing Qaddafi and Hussein with "democracy" may prove in retrospect to have been massively stupid.


Exactly, and that is my point with Assad as well. And in retrospect the Shah of Iran in 79.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> And violence always works, doesn't it? It worked for the USSR in Afghanistan, and it worked for the West in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the French in Algeria, and for the US in Vietnam. Didn't it? Surely violence must work, otherwise why would people keep advocating it?


Chouan, it is people like you that, while only complaining about the conflicts of the past and offering no solutions for the present and the future that are part of the problem.

Violence does work, otherwise terrorists wouldn't be successful, otherwise Bin Laden wouldn't have been killed, otherwise Germany wouldn't have been beaten in 2 world wars, otherwsie Algeria would still be French, otherwise Afghanistan would still be occupied by Communists, otherwise Napoleon wouldn't have been beaten, otherwise there would now only be one Korea, otherwise Ireland would still be British, otherwise the Soviet Union would still exist and the Berlin Wall would still be in place, otherwise Yugosloavia would still be a communist oppressive state. DON'T FORGET, every act of violence and every conflict and war is a success for one side!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

You're confusing violence in one's defence, and violence in pursuit of some kind of oppression, perceived or otherwise. The Sovs used plenty of violence in their attempts to crush the insurgency in Afghanistan, and failed miserably. The French sought to use violence to maintain their control of Algeria, and failed. We tried to use violence in Afghanistan to impose our version of society on the Afghans, and in Iraq, to keep it under control, and failed. The use of violence against popular resistance and insurrection and terrorists has always failed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Pentheos said:


> These ISIS guys seem to like violence. We should bring them some.


Don't you think they would do better with a jobs program and a team of social workers?

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/0...e-dept-claim-that-jobs-program-can-stop-isis/


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> You're confusing violence in one's defence, and violence in pursuit of some kind of oppression, perceived or otherwise. The Sovs used plenty of violence in their attempts to crush the insurgency in Afghanistan, and failed miserably. The French sought to use violence to maintain their control of Algeria, and failed. We tried to use violence in Afghanistan to impose our version of society on the Afghans, and in Iraq, to keep it under control, *and failed*. The use of violence against popular resistance and insurrection and terrorists has always failed.


You mean gave up.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> The use of violence against popular resistance and insurrection and terrorists has always failed.


No it hasn't.

I'm not confusing anything. Every person and every nation has the right to meet violence with violence regardless of cause or reason.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

All warfare comes down to who has the greater will. Particularly in this case. There is no question as to who has the greater financial, technological and military resources. 

It's a matter of will. Who has the greater will to destroy whom? If we don't show resolve and will, we will not prevail. We can come up with excuses and euphemisms for Islamic radicalization and violence, but unless we show more than rhetorical resolve, we will not prevail. 

The only thing worse than completely withdrawing is going in half-assed. It's an antibiotic. If you're going to treat the disease, go in and do it, otherwise the organism lives and actually strengthens.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> The only thing worse than completely withdrawing is going in half-assed. It's an antibiotic. If you're going to treat the disease, go in and do it, otherwise the organism lives and actually strengthens.


+1.... Exactly.

I mean could you imagine if the yanks alone had been fighting the 2 world wars without the British, the British Commonwealth and Russia...we would have lost them


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No it hasn't.
> 
> I'm not confusing anything. Every person and every nation has the right to meet violence with violence regardless of cause or reason.


Can you give me an example of where popular insurrection has been crushed by violence? 
Some examples from close to home might help to illustrate my point. The Provo's campaign of terror wasn't crushed by violence, it was ended by negotiation. On the other hand, although the Anti-Treaty IRA in Ireland *was* crushed by violence, it was only crushed because it wasn't a widely supported and popular movement. The majority of the Irish people had voted for the Treaty, so the "Irregulars" didn't have the necessary wide support. The terror campaign of the IRA up to Independence wasn't crushed by violence, despite Britain's violent response. Again, negotiation ended the war, not British violence.
The Americans, were, I suppose, successful in crushing the insurrection in the Philippines in the early 20th Century, but it wasn't a universally popular insurrection, and I doubt that the methods used in that conflict are the sort of methods that we'd want to use now. Like killing all males over the age of twelve, for example.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You mean gave up.


Because it became realised that the conflicts were unwinable.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Can you give me an example of where popular insurrection has been crushed by violence?


Why are you asking me for examples. I thought you knew all this stuff already.

Here's just a few:

Ireland 1916 - to such an extent that it took 3 years before the IRB, ICA, IV and CnamB could even start fighting the British again in 1919 as a united IRA. 
Spain 1936 
Syria today 
Punjab since 1947 and still ongoing
Kurdistan today


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Don't you think they would do better with a jobs program and a team of social workers?
> 
> https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/0...e-dept-claim-that-jobs-program-can-stop-isis/


I suggest a comprehensive pre-K program for little Jihadi but we may not want to call it HEAD start!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I suggest a comprehensive pre-K program for little Jihadi but we may not want to call it HEAD start!!


Clever! 

Don't forget to send out a team of healthcare navigators to discuss options under the new ACA.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Can you give me an example of where popular insurrection has been crushed by violence?
> Some examples from close to home might help to illustrate my point. The Provo's campaign of terror wasn't crushed by violence, it was ended by negotiation. On the other hand, although the Anti-Treaty IRA in Ireland *was* crushed by violence, it was only crushed because it wasn't a widely supported and popular movement. The majority of the Irish people had voted for the Treaty, so the "Irregulars" didn't have the necessary wide support. The terror campaign of the IRA up to Independence wasn't crushed by violence, despite Britain's violent response. Again, negotiation ended the war, not British violence.
> The Americans, were, I suppose, successful in crushing the insurrection in the Philippines in the early 20th Century, but it wasn't a universally popular insurrection, and I doubt that the methods used in that conflict are the sort of methods that we'd want to use now. Like killing all males over the age of twelve, for example.


Off the top of my head:

Judea, by Rome.
Algeria, 1846
Sri Lanka, when was that? Just a few years ago.
Tibet in the 1950s.
US Civil War.
The Philippines insurrection (against the US).

Actually, the list is really long if one wants to get into it. I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying that COIN in the past has worked well while being very violent. What's more difficult to come up with are examples of insurgencies ending peacefully in the absence of overwhelming force.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Why are you asking me for examples. I thought you knew all this stuff already.
> 
> Here's just a few:
> 
> ...


An unpopular rising by a few uniformed people fighting as soldiers (apart from shooting unarmed men on convalescent leave). Hardly a popular terrorist movement.
Spain 1936. To what extent was a popular terrorist movement crushed? If you consider the Republicans a terrorist insurrection, do you consider that the measures taken by Franco, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the Fascist concentration camps a method to be emulated. 
Has the popular movement in the Punjab been crushed?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Off the top of my head:
> 
> Judea, by Rome.
> Algeria, 1846
> ...


The Judean insurrection, was crushed with the assistance of the local population, people like Josephus, for example. Not really a popular insurrection. 
Algeria was regular warfare, to a great extent. In any case, the Algerians, one could argue, won in the end.
Sri Lanka I'll give you. They won by committing what was close to genocide. Is that a price worth paying?
Tibet in the 1950's was simply conquest by the Chinese Army, the Tibetan army and militia were very quickly defeated, and there hasn't been what one could describe as a popular terrorist movement subsequently.
The US Civil War again wasn't really a popular terrorist movement, and, although the North did carry out some pretty unpleasant actions, such as Order Number Ten in Missouri, and there was some guerilla fighting, once the armies of the South were defeated, and had surrendered, there wasn't a resistance movement of any kind, apart from the KKK, of course. Perhaps the relatively magnanimous behaviour of the North subsequently meant that defeat was more palatable, than the repressive regime that could have been imposed.
I've already mentioned the Philippines, again, would that level of violence be a price worth paying?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> What's more difficult to come up with are examples of insurgencies ending peacefully in the absence of overwhelming force.


Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Malayan emergency as well, although in that case the terrorist insurgents were ethnically different to the bulk of the population.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> An unpopular rising by a few uniformed people fighting as soldiers (apart from shooting unarmed men on convalescent leave). *Hardly a popular terrorist movement.*
> Spain 1936. *To what extent was a popular terrorist movement crushed? *If you consider the Republicans a terrorist insurrection, do you consider that the measures taken by Franco, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the Fascist concentration camps a method to be emulated.
> Has the popular movement in the Punjab been crushed?


OI! Don't move the goalposts! You asked for "Can you give me an example of where *popular insurrection *has been crushed by violence?"

ALL five that I listed were popular insurrections, *I never called them terrorism and you never asked for terrorism*. I supplied what you asked for *a list of popular insurrections*. Spain was extremely popular seeing as most of the population voted against Franco in the election that the Nationalists lost, thus most of the people were behind the fight against him after he seized power illegally.

Neither Punjab, Syria or Kurdistan are yet free from their oppressors and that is becasue the popular movements are constantly being crushed by the military. Again, this is what you asked for examples of. Your words: "Can you give me an example of where *popular insurrection *has been crushed by violence?"

Ireland Easter1916 was not popular in Dublin where all the West Brits lived but it was popular in the rest of the country.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> The Judean insurrection, was crushed with the assistance of the local population, people like Josephus, for example. Not really a popular insurrection.
> Algeria was regular warfare, to a great extent. In any case, the Algerians, one could argue, won in the end.
> Sri Lanka I'll give you. They won by committing what was close to genocide. Is that a price worth paying?
> Tibet in the 1950's was simply conquest by the Chinese Army, the Tibetan army and militia were very quickly defeated, and there hasn't been what one could describe as a popular terrorist movement subsequently.
> ...


Moving the goalposts again? Yes, you are becasue now when you have been provided with several good examples you have startedi nserting the words terrorist and terrorism between "popular" and "movement" People are providing what you asked for! End of! Your assumption, however, about violence not succeeding against popular uprisings and terrorism is simply and totally incorrect.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Before Chouan derails the thread any further with his odd and erroneous theories about violence being ineffective as "violence"???? 
I'd like to bring up some past conflicts, like Korea, as examples of where joint multi-national forces can succeed in military efforts.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Spain 1936. To what extent was a popular terrorist movement crushed? If you consider the Republicans a terrorist insurrection, do you consider that the measures taken by Franco, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the Fascist concentration camps a method to be emulated.


Now you change it.

You claimed no examples existed.

Is violence ever effective??

Yes, it is.

Say it.

SAY IT!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> OI! Don't move the goalposts! You asked for "Can you give me an example of where *popular insurrection *has been crushed by violence?"


Sorry, my mistake.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> ALL five that I listed were popular insurrections, *I never called them terrorism and you never asked for terrorism*. I supplied what you asked for *a list of popular insurrections*. Spain was extremely popular seeing as most of the population voted against Franco in the election that the Nationalists lost, thus most of the people were behind the fight against him after he seized power illegally.
> 
> Neither Punjab, Syria or Kurdistan are yet free from their oppressors and that is becasue the popular movements are constantly being crushed by the military. Again, this is what you asked for examples of. Your words: "Can you give me an example of where *popular insurrection *has been crushed by violence?"
> 
> Ireland Easter1916 was not popular in Dublin where all the West Brits lived but it was popular in the rest of the country.


However, to turn to your other points....
Franco was never elected and wasn't even a candidate in 1936, or even the leader of the Right Wing coup that led to his dictatorship. Franco's regime was actually quite popular, especially amongst the property owning classes, and, if you describe it as an insurrection, it wasn't crushed by violence; it did the crushing!
Your other examples of the Punjab etc are evidence that crushing with violence doesn't work, as the insurrections haven't stopped.
Dublin in 1916 was by no means popular in the rest of Ireland, that is just Nationalist mythology. In any case, the defeat of a military operation in one city is hardly the defeat a popular insurrection.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The insurrection was that of the Army against the legitimate government of the Republic. It succeeded, despite the violence of the government. If you consider the legitimate, elected government of the Republic to be an insurrection, that's a different matter.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Perhaps the relatively magnanimous behaviour of the North subsequently meant that defeat was more palatable, than the repressive regime that could have been imposed.


I think that you might need to do some more research on Reconstruction.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I think that you might need to do some more research on Reconstruction.


Magnanimous in comparison to other civil wars. If you compare the treatment of the surrendering Confederate Army with the treatment of the Republican Army in 1939, or the White Army in the years after 1920, or the Royalist Army in 1649, you'll see what I mean. Even though reconstruction might have been seen as being oppression by the North, it was very much less bad than the treatment meted out to other defeated Nations over the years.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying that COIN in the past has worked well while being very violent.


Any reason why you haven't acknowledged my PM? A simple acknowledgement would have at least been courteous.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Lets get back on track. The bottom line surely is that no amount of talking, negotiations or compromises short of the whole world converting to Islam is going to stop IS from their activities, this is clearly a case of where force must be met with even greater force.

Something to think about: Islamists, Jihadists and any other brainwashed Mulsim fanatics think that the Koran permits them to kill infidels in the name of Allah, surely then according to IS other Muslims would be fully justified in wiping IS off the face of the earth! 

And the King of Jordan is leading the way. If you can't beat terrorists with your own methods use theirs instead!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Don't be silly, the only way to win is to give up!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't be silly, the only way to win is to give up!!


Or ignore the fact that there's any problem at all. After all, is there any such thing as terrorism? Aren't we getting on our high horse?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Any reason why you haven't acknowledged my PM? A simple acknowledgement would have at least been courteous.


I was unaware you had sent me a pm; i apologize. I seldom log on using my computer, and the new version of tapatalk baffles me. I do not see any notification of a new message.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I was unaware you had sent me a pm; i apologize. I seldom log on using my computer, and the new version of tapatalk baffles me. I do not see any notification of a new message.


No problem. Thanks for your response.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Or ignore the fact that there's any problem at all. After all, is there any such thing as terrorism? Aren't we getting on our high horse?


Indeed, who are we to judge??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The WP hasn't gotten the memo;

The Islamic State's atrocities By Anup Kaphle, Published: Feb. 17, 2015 
After breaking away from al-Qaeda in early February 2014, the *extremist Islamic* group led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Since then, it has gained control of wide regions in Iraq and Syria, including the city of Raqqa, which is now the group's de facto capital. The group has targeted cities and areas in northern Iraq and Syria and massacred hundreds of soldiers and residents, especially those who belong to minority tribes. You can In addition to the massacres, scores of hostages, including Westerners, have been killed by the Islamic State since then.

Here are some of the major incidents where the Islamic State killed the hostages.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

It says something pretty sorry about you when you break away from al-Qaeda because they're not extreme nor violent enough for you.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The world was so much simpler when it was just us and the Soviets.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The world was so much simpler when it was just us and the Soviets.


If only it had ever been that simple!


----------

