Nine US soldiers killed, forty wounded in this mountain debacle battle.
March 4, 2002 2:49 PM   Subscribe

Nine US soldiers killed, forty wounded in this mountain debacle battle.
Surprise, surprise. Our enemies can still shoot up convoys and shoot down helicopters. (Many of them did the same thing to the Soviets.) Why are we sending our troops to the front in rented pickup trucks and 4-wheel drive vehicles? What ever happened to the Bradley? Don't they know that helicopters make great targets... especially when your enemy has Stingers? Why rush back into ground combat against a larger-than-expected enemy force anyways?
o/` "All we are saying... is give bombs a chance!"
posted by insomnia_lj (58 comments total)
 
Try being a little less celebratory when people die to protect you.
posted by NortonDC at 3:01 PM on March 4, 2002


Well that's about the most pompous self-congratulatory thing I'll read all week. I'm so happy for your joy, insomnia_lj. Maybe you and fold_and_mutilate will throw us all a party and won't that be fun.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:06 PM on March 4, 2002


Tone can be hard to tell in writing, but this doesn't sound celebratory to me. It sounds like he's upset that we're not protecting our soldiers more.
posted by jeblis at 3:09 PM on March 4, 2002


Yeh, I don't see what the hell You two (norton and wulfgar) are talking about. He's pissed that our soldures died in this instance, due to what apears to be hubris on the part of our leaders.
posted by delmoi at 3:12 PM on March 4, 2002


You mean people get killed in battle? Why was I not informed? This is contrary to everything I've ever read about armed conflict! I thought it was supposed to be a largely theatrical exercise, focused on synchronized marching!
posted by aramaic at 3:15 PM on March 4, 2002


Well, at the very least, the poster is intimating he's smarter, or knows more than the Pentagon, which, well...offensive and asinine.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:15 PM on March 4, 2002


It seethes with mockery and evinces no concern for any of the lives lost.

Har har, they got blown up. Boy, are they dumb.

If that is not what he meant to convey to me, the reader, then he failed utterly.
posted by NortonDC at 3:16 PM on March 4, 2002


I'm down with Norton. Got a better plan Insomnia?
posted by BentPenguin at 3:19 PM on March 4, 2002


I read it as: "why they hell are we giving our troops inferior or inappropriate equipment (rented trucks, 4x4's, helicopters)" If he is suggesting that the pentagon or the generals are "dumb" or made a bad move that does not mean he has no concern for the lives lost...in fact quite the opposite.
posted by jeblis at 3:24 PM on March 4, 2002


I read it as: "why they hell are we giving our troops inferior or inappropriate equipment (rented trucks, 4x4's, helicopters)" If he is suggesting that the pentagon or the generals are "dumb" or made a bad move that does not mean he has no concern for the lives lost...in fact quite the opposite.
posted by jeblis at 3:25 PM on March 4, 2002


Well, he seems to be calling people stupid because they got 'our boys' killed.
posted by delmoi at 3:28 PM on March 4, 2002


I read it as "we're going to do a new front-page-post every time a soldier dies in combat."
posted by mrbula at 3:28 PM on March 4, 2002


Apologies if I've offended. I just have little tolerance for what seems like snide comments at the expense of human life. This wasn't a debacle, it was a a battle. Helocopters weren't flying into a stupid situation, they were following orders. This post was completely self-congratulatory in the face of what happened. People died. Morn, whether their Al Queda or American, don't make a joke of it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:31 PM on March 4, 2002


I mourn any death, and these are sadder than most.

These young men bought the lie... hook, line, and sinker. They are dying not to "protect" (as some would have it), but to perpetuate the grip of the pompous, the cowardly, and the spoiled. How sad that their lives became tools for evil and incompetence.

Violence begets violence. Reap the whirlwind.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:32 PM on March 4, 2002


insomnia, rewrite your FPP so we can get to your topic without any more bashing. I suggest being a little less emotional and more factual.

RIP
posted by ashbury at 3:35 PM on March 4, 2002


(not that I'm telling you what to do. sorry about coming across all boss-like)
posted by ashbury at 3:37 PM on March 4, 2002


Maybe you and fold_and_mutilate will throw us all a party and won't that be fun.

I do throw great parties. Thanks for asking.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:38 PM on March 4, 2002


"I hate when important stories are ruined by lousy posts. How many errors can you find? Where's the cleanup crew when you need them?!"
posted by insomnia_lj to etiquette/policy at 12:23 AM PST
posted by keithl at 3:39 PM on March 4, 2002


As I've noted in previous threads on this very same battle, even the most spectacularly successful infantry operation of the 20th century, the D-Day invasion of France, was marked by disorder, destruction, and death. The measure of a battle's success isn't that people got killed, it's whether the objective was obtained at minimal cost.

Minimal cost does not mean no loss of life.

If there were any hope that insomnia were doing anything more than the most crass demagoguery, it was utterly destroyed by his final sarcastic comment. Insomnia: Grow the hell up. This is rea. The cost is not to be measured in how many soldiers died today, but in how many civilians would have been killed by future attacks on the United States and our allies. The more we react like some kind of 1920s silent-movie parody of a woman frightened of a mouse -- eek! combat deaths! -- the more vulnerable we will be to even the most minor attack. If they think they can humiliate the US with just a few soldiers killed (while they freely take casualties numbered in the hundreds), they will be even more bloodthirsty in the future. We must disabuse them of the notion that we are incapable of tolerating battlefield deaths, or we will never be rid of terrorism.
posted by dhartung at 3:39 PM on March 4, 2002


I think insomnia is tapped into the zeitgeist that it's a "debacle" that demands an explanation when American troops are killed in combat.

I recall reading an essay early last year from some highly-regarded combat veteran saying this idea was crippling the effectiveness of the military, and gave enemies confidence.

On a related topic, last week I read that the U.S. has perhaps killed more Afghan civilians as "collateral damage" than bin Laden killed in the WTC. You can claim apples and oranges, but I haven't seen any weepy front page eulogies for afghan kids (cf. Pearl). An accurate count of dead Afghan civilians may never be known, which will work as a great escape clause for Washington. No one's feet will be held to the fire.

As for more bombs, insomnia, that has been tried. Doesn't work (cf. Vietnam).
posted by planetkyoto at 3:50 PM on March 4, 2002


We must disabuse them of the notion that we are incapable of tolerating battlefield deaths, or we will never be rid of terrorism.

Right. One predicts that the hijackers flying into the towers were chanting "We must show these Americans that we can kill and/or die without a whimper, or we will never be rid of American influence."

And the "battle" fought by the hijackers was sure successful by these definitions I'm reading, wasn't it? I mean, their objective was obtained at only a minimal cost to life for their side, right? So we should admire them, right? I mean, it was just like D-Day, right?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:51 PM on March 4, 2002


Helicopters weren't flying into a stupid situation, they were following orders.

Back in the 80s, American forces trained the Mujahadeen to take out Russian helicopters in these same mountains. Were this posting a criticism of US tactical judgement, it would be sound.
posted by joemaller at 3:52 PM on March 4, 2002


Well, at the very least, the poster is intimating he's smarter, or knows more than the Pentagon, which, well...offensive and asinine.

don't question the leader!
posted by rhyax at 3:54 PM on March 4, 2002


In many ways, it sounds like the US is a victim of its own success. With hardly any non-friendly fire casualties in all major conflicts since Viet Nam, people aren't used to seeing Americans killed in any sort of combat situation.

This explains the use of the word debacle (Viet Nam was a debacle, a single battle in Afghanistan is nothing!), and the fear/outrage mix that some people might feel. While I disagree with Dhartung that tolerating combat deaths will rid us of terrorism, I do agree that expressing shock and horror at a battle where Americans were killed is not the best reaction.
posted by cell divide at 3:55 PM on March 4, 2002


On a related topic, last week I read that the U.S. has perhaps killed more Afghan civilians as "collateral damage" than bin Laden killed in the WTC.

source?
posted by Dean King at 3:55 PM on March 4, 2002


The whole problem with crying and moaning over battle casualties is that it gives terrorists and other groups the false perception in their already intelligence-deficient minds that at the first sign of "our boys" dying America will run away (see Somalia). Soldiers die, it's not pretty but they know that when they sign up.
posted by owillis at 4:07 PM on March 4, 2002


Dean, he's using the numbers in the discredited Herold study (that is, everywhere except the uncritical lefty wing of the press). Herold's claims of 3767 civilian deaths (at a certain point late in the fall campaign) are far higher than the figure of approximately 1000-1300 used by Human Rights Watch and the Associated Press. Even if there were not obvious problems with Herold's data collection (uncritical acceptance of Taliban government claims reported in the press, uncritical acceptance of third-hand claims reported through the grapevine and making their way to newspapers, apparent double-counting in some instances because of delayed reports), Herold made no effort in his study to distinguish between civilian and military (guerrilla) deaths. If the attack took place in a village or compound where civilians resided, they were all counted. Herold's obvious bias against the war, expressed in the report summary and throughout, makes him a suspect reporter.
posted by dhartung at 4:16 PM on March 4, 2002


Dean King: Here's an example article. There are no definite statistics on 'collateral damage' because nobody is really counting (the Pentagon certainly isn't). This is the report referred to in the article. Note that the guy is anti-war, so you may think he's biased. On the other hand, pro-war people don't seem so interested in gathering statistics. I think the UN say it's more than 1000, Medecins Sans Frontieres estimate 2000-3000.
posted by Gaz at 4:21 PM on March 4, 2002


I think insomnia's point was something along these lines (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1979: Soviet Union stages increadibly successful and rapid invasion of Afghanistan.

1979-89: Soviet Union goes bankrupt, due in no small part to the increadible human and material cost of maintaining the war effort in Afghanistan, despite the fact that it is right next door.

2001: United States stages increadibly successful and rapid toppling of despotic Afghan government.

Afghanistan has proven itself a Siren of the modern world. It looks so easy: how hard could it be to invade what is, by far, the poorest country in the world? And the initial invasion proves so damn successful, it's hard to argue with. But then things begin to get difficult. And that is what insomnia seems to be worrying about.
posted by Ptrin at 4:27 PM on March 4, 2002


...far higher than the figure of approximately 1000-1300 used by Human Rights Watch and the Associated Press.

Right. That's so much a better civilian death figure than 3767.

Tell that to the families involved. Likewise, I'm sure it's real consolation to the families of WTC victims that there weren't 20,000 killed after all, as early reports would have had it.

And no doubt 1000-1300 is an accurate count. No doubt. I mean, our own government doesn't put out propaganda, now does it? I mean, our own government wouldn't try to censor or restrict access to news, would it?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:27 PM on March 4, 2002


Whatever the figures, civilians are dying, and this article indicates that it's a cause of serious discontent in the Afghan coalition.

The question I'd ask: do governments have a duty to risk their own soldiers' lives to protect/avoid killing civilians? Traditional rules of war hold that they do, but nowadays no-one seems to bother.
posted by Gaz at 4:35 PM on March 4, 2002


>>As for more bombs, insomnia, that has been tried. Doesn't work (cf. Vietnam).

Actually, look at yr recent history. The bombs seemed rather effective in Iraq and Kosovo; in both cases, the immediate goal was achieved with minimal loss of American life.

And it worked well in Vietnam. Read the novel "The Sorrow of War", which was written by a veteran of the NVA, and see what terror and disruption the B-52 strikes would cause amongst the ranks. The bombings in Vietnam weren't a cure-all but they forced the NVA and VC into stealth mode and greatly reduced their effectiveness. Things would have been much worse had the US not heavily bombed its opponents.

Its too early to definitively say in the current Afghanistan campaign, but the evidence, so far, points towards similar efficacy on the part of heavy air strikes.
posted by pandaharma at 4:36 PM on March 4, 2002


Ashbury - I challenge you to point out any non-factual statements in my post.

I 'm hardly trying to be celebratory here. I just believe that our military should use their strengths against the enemies weaknesses. I don't see that happening here, with the exception of the belated bombing of enemy defenses.

It is worth pointing out that the heaviest fighting in this war happened previously during the liberation of Afghanistan, with US air supporting Afghani ground troops, and US ground troops in a primarily advisory role. As a result, US casualties were negligable. This battle, however, seems to indicate a major change in policy and in the roles that our soldiers are playing overseas.

The real question is what is the objective that justifies these actions? Is the territory we are attacking of great strategic importance? No. The only reason to take these risks with US lives is in order to more thoroughly destroy or capture this pocket of resistance, rather than just defeat, erode, and scatter it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see this goal of "total victory" as worth 9 dead US troops and 40 wounded. The best we can hope for is leaving behind a stable, more democratic Afghanistan. The US has about as much chance of defeating the sociological forces that cause terrorism as they do in winning the war against drugs... and if you dig deep enough, you will always find another angry young kid who is willing to throw a stone at you.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:37 PM on March 4, 2002


But then things begin to get difficult. And that is what insomnia seems to be worrying about.

Remember that the Russians had things pretty well in hand in Afghanistan until the Americans started sending billions of dollars in aid (including the most advanced man-portable SAMs in the world).

I'm not saying that the Americans are assured of success, but the situations are not exactly comparable.
posted by jaek at 4:44 PM on March 4, 2002


There's probably a motion picture in this calamity!
posted by skinsuit at 4:45 PM on March 4, 2002


To pick nits, why is the BBC saying in their little sidebox that the Chinook was first delivered in 1994? That puppy was used in Vietnam.
posted by smackfu at 4:49 PM on March 4, 2002


To pick nits, why is the BBC saying in their little sidebox that the Chinook was first delivered in 1994? That puppy was used in Vietnam.

Looks like the 'E' variant came in in 1994. That's probably why they got it wrong.
posted by Gaz at 4:58 PM on March 4, 2002


jaek - of course the situations aren't identical, but it's important to realise that this war is taking US soldiers to places all over the world (Georgia, Yemen, the Phillipines, etc.) and that there are foreign countries that might want to assist our enemies for their own reasons.

Case in point - Russia leaked intelligence to the Serbs just a few years ago, leading to the downing of a US stealth plane. They were supposedly our "allies" when they did this.

When Russia heard that the US was deploying "military advisors" to Georgia recently, the were furious. The US also has military troops based in several other former soviet republics.

There is a serious risk that US "foriegn advisors" will be seen by the Russians, Chinese, etc. as trying to geopolitically alter the world's balance of power. The former Soviet states might not be under Russia's direct control anymore, but it is naive to think that Russia doesn't want them under their thumb.

It is worth noting that for the first several years of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA assisted the Afghani rebels by sending them Russian-made arms. Why?! Because to send them US arms would eliminate "plausible deniability". I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Chinese and the Russians do the same thing to us.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:02 PM on March 4, 2002


I caught Caleb Carr on C-Span a few nights ago, talking about his new book and getting into tired arguments on the Middle East.

He did have one very interesting thing to say: the Afghan war is the first operation in U.S. history where the military did not (thus far, anyway) directly and intentionally target civilians or civilian structures. In essence, he thought this was the first time we've been at war and haven't acted like terrorists.

I think he has a point, and Rumsfeld may deserve a bit more credit that he's been given.
posted by apostasy at 5:19 PM on March 4, 2002


I am not convinced that Afghanistan is the first war in which we did not directly target civilians: Korea was to my knowledge a war in which civies got killed but not intentionally. Further: in our century civilians are now generally targeted, unlike, say, WWI and Civil War. We firebombed Dresden and used A bombs on Japan.
The poster made a nice try at redemption but needs to recognize that his tone in the first post is what called in the troops against him. Suggestion: serve some time in the military.
posted by Postroad at 5:32 PM on March 4, 2002


"them Russian-made arms. Why?!" Please. the reason was ammo and spare parts. A .223 wont fit into a AK. The Russians and Chinese do it everyday. take Arafats latest cache taken off a Ship. (cant remember which harbor) mostly Russian, some chinese i believe. WHO bought them, the russians? sorry, the russians give nyet away. The chinese? I doubt it, they are to smart for a direct purchase. Of course this is assuming these weapons where the only ones coming in that week. (perhaps that shipment was a decoy.)" US "foriegn advisors" will be seen by the Russians, Chinese, etc. as trying to geopolitically alter the world's balance of power."
what would you call someone from Canada working in China for General Motors.....? an adviser, a worker?....The world is a bit more complex then the questions you ask based on older modes of military warfare and geo-political statecraft. Chinook indeed goes back further then Vietnam. Perhaps they were refering to a newer variant.(trying to improve me syntax)
posted by clavdivs at 5:59 PM on March 4, 2002


Postroad: not to nitpick but civilians were targeted in both WW1 and the Civil War. Sherman's March and Sheridan's devastation of the Shenandoah come to mind for the latter conflict. WW1 was the first significant use of airpower against a civilian population; the Germans bombed London and other cities with Zepplins and sank passenger ships in the Atlantic.

However, in the wars and engagements fought after WWII, Americans only targetted civilians in Vietnam; all other overt conflicts were fought with a desire to avoid civilian casualties when possible.
posted by pandaharma at 6:07 PM on March 4, 2002


My two cents:

I think a lot of attitude about US military intervention is a leftover from the Vietnam war days. Just like the right seems to want to sanitise the memory of Vietnam war into US collective consciousness, a lot of the snideness of reaction of the left - liberal seem to stem from the memory of excesses of the Vietnam war.

I think it is largely accepted that the underlying causes of International/US intervention in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan are essentially humanitarian (so long as we dont get into debate about the legitimacy of the Kuwaiti regime or the constitution of the current regime in Afghanistan).

If we accept that, then the debate is largely about 1. 'collateral damage' 2. loss of US lives.

I am sure that abuses do happen. What is noteworthy is that (even in urban theatres like that of Central Europe), the number of innocent lives lost has been going down. (In the interest of disclosure: It is possible that I am being blase' because, India has been suffering a stead influx of Mujaheedin terrorists into Kashmir for over last 10 years now and we are glad that there is a reduction in scale of violence in Kashmir as an indirect result of the conflict in Afghanistan.)

So far as loss of lives go: I tend to think that loss of American lives in a war tend to get hyped up. Part of it is apparently the legacy of Vietnam war when the steady images of bodybags coming home scarred the nation. It could also be that for a very long time this country has been away from the blood and gore that permeats other parts of the world. The sanctity of lives in human psyche could be more here. Anti-war movements are also stronger.

It is however a given, that in terrain of the kind where US is fighting, a ground offensive will have to take place. If you indulge in ground offensive, people wil die. India fought a similar war in Kargil over even more hopeless territory in the peak of winter in snowclad mountains and we had to fight for every inch. Many died.

To address Insomnia's qn: Do you need to fight everyone? I think you do. Al Quaida's hatred of US/the West appears to be visceral, rooted in history. They didnt present you with a charter of demands that you can negotiate over.
You can't talk to such people. I am under no illusion that the destruction of Al Quaida infrastructure in Afghanistan would make the world completely safe from this kind of terrorism. But I do believe that it would considerably reduce its ability to perpetrate large scale violence for a very long time to come. That to my mind is a worthwhile objective.
posted by justlooking at 6:29 PM on March 4, 2002


The analysis I had heard on Lehrer was that this is a turning point in the war in that we are using our own troops to fight (101st and 10th Mt.) instead of just advising Afghani troops with Special Forces. Evidently we learned from the Tora Bora situation that our Afghani friends would just let the Al-Queda and Taliban escape.

This battle has been in the planning for weeks. The strategy sounded like we were waiting for Al-Q and Taliban to regroup in one area and then launch a major attack to crush them. Operation Anaconda is a fitting moniker. Better then piece-meal attacks on scattered enemy troops.
posted by scottfree at 7:07 PM on March 4, 2002


"not to nitpick but civilians were targeted in both WW1 and the Civil War." not to nit pick but 'civies' were 'targeted' during the french and indian war. During the revolution civilians were targeted, like printers or black market traders. perhaps targeting, you mean, to attack virtually defenseless people, then the F and I war fits in THIS category. But i would pick Sherman and his path of fire as an early accurate example of civilans being targeted.
posted by clavdivs at 7:09 PM on March 4, 2002


Not to nitpick, but war is a terrible and ugly thing that has been going on since the God invented the human race, or since the dawn of time, or since we evolved articulated phlanges, or since the monkey touched the monolith - whatever you want to believe. It's a fact of life. It's rotten, and if I were given wishes by a genie, I would end all war forever. That said; if you make jokes about the deaths of the people who are protecting us - even if they were going about it all wrong, and superiors were misguided - you are a callow, ivory-tower ensconced fuck, and I would gladly trade places with you only so I could jump off a bridge.
posted by GriffX at 7:50 PM on March 4, 2002


The back seat driver is mildly irritating. The Monday morning quarterback merely foolish. The discussion board General, however, looking in retrospect at American deaths while comfortably seated at a computer a couple thousand miles from the battlefield ... deeply insults both the families of those who have lost their lives, and the commanders of those men - who take the loss of any of their soldiers very personally.

RIP boys ... Apparently a couple of folks here think you died because your commanders were sloppy, or in fact merely because you were - foolishly - just pawns in a game you didn't understand. One claims you didn't die to protect anything - you were just stupid enough to buy a "lie".

To you - and to your families - I feel nothing but an immense sense of silent gratitude. Really evil men blew up my city. You were sent, on my behalf, to do battle with others that would blow it up again, given half a chance. And you gave your lives doing it.

To any armed services folks - or family members - on this board ... rest assured that for every isolated ASSHOLE that pisses on a soldier's grave in disrespect ... there are a thousand of us that know well the depth of the sacrifice it takes to put on a uniform ... and who honor your commitment more than words can say ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:48 PM on March 4, 2002


I myself have nothing self-important to add...
posted by y2karl at 9:45 PM on March 4, 2002


I myself have nothing self-important to add...

So you naturally decided to just content yourself with a cheap shot. Yawn.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:34 PM on March 4, 2002


Unfortunately, there will be many more casualties, and every one of them will be a grievous loss. At last report, some two dozen troops have been KIA since the Afghanistan campaign began--much fewer than we might have expected--but it's inevitable that there will be more casualties on both sides and among the civilians in the middle.
But if I may tie this in with another recent thread here, I don't think the current war is analagous to Vietnam in either the reality or how it's perceived by the American people. I opposed the Vietnam War myself (though not quite draft age at the time), mostly because it seemed like a totally senseless action. My two older brothers both served there. I just wanted them to come home alive (they did, if not totally unscathed).
As for the forces in Afghanistan not having Bradley fighting vehicles or a large array of transport vehicles, I would guess it's a matter of logistics, having to do with the same reason we don't have a huge force there. It takes a hell of a lot of everything to support a lot of troops. We had a large force in Vietnam, and the supply situation was a real "clusterf***"--so many supplies being offloaded, there were acres of them rotting in the tropical humidity, and nobody could keep up with it.
I just hope these days commanders aren't bitching at the troops for calling in air support. ("It costs Uncle Sam $10,000 every time Spooky [the gunship] empties his guns into the bush," was the rebuke they got in Vietnam.)
posted by StOne at 11:29 PM on March 4, 2002


'you are a callow, ivory-tower ensconced fuc..." who? the poster?.....the monolith came to the monkey...not to nitpick.
posted by clavdivs at 7:55 AM on March 5, 2002


I nominate MidasMulligan for Best. Post. Ever.
posted by jammer at 10:15 AM on March 5, 2002


In essence, he thought this was the first time we've been at war and haven't acted like terrorists.

Yeah, it's easy for Carr to say that as long as "terrorist" means anything Carr wants it to mean.
posted by aaron at 2:01 PM on March 5, 2002




I stand by my assertion. US and Afghani soldiers were led into battle in pickup trucks and lost their lives for lack of what... adequate military transportation?!

I have had relatives die in WWII and Vietnam. I don't think anyone wants another Vietnam, where US soldiers died for lack of proper support. Now is not the time to be stingy with bombs, or tanks, or armed transport, or anything that gets as many US soldiers back home alive as possible. I am not so naive to think that nobody will die, but to have a major offensive blunted and have soldiers die because they were in a pickup truck instead of a armored vehicle? That isn't good enough.

And if these sentiments are traitorous, consider me proudly branded.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:32 AM on March 6, 2002


Where in these articles does it say that U.S. soldiers died specifically because they were in rented pick-up trucks? I must have missed it. All I saw was that "the Afghans approached the front from three different directions, some of them using pickup trucks rented for $200 from the bazaar in the Paktia provincial capital of Gardez, Afghans said."
posted by xyzzy at 4:29 AM on March 6, 2002


xyzzy - Shh, you're fucking up insomnia_lj's backpedaling and offensive grab for the moral high ground.
posted by NortonDC at 4:52 AM on March 6, 2002




« Older What People Earn.   |   exposing herself to win votes? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments