Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


the price of freedom
August 5, 2003 11:33 AM   Subscribe

"The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." Marines firebombed Iraqis during the initial campaign of the Iraq war.
posted by four panels (56 comments total)

 
Didn't we already learn this from Apocalypse Now? I mean they love the smell of napalm in the morning. I think because it smells like victory.
posted by jmauro at 11:40 AM on August 5, 2003


By James W. Crawley
He was an embedded reporter during the war.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:43 AM on August 5, 2003


Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

Every word that comes out of this administration is a lie including "the" and "and." /only slight overstatement
posted by wsg at 11:50 AM on August 5, 2003


OK, so the American military used a weapon against its enemy during wartime.

...

Is there something I'm missing here?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:53 AM on August 5, 2003


Is there something I'm missing here?

Yes. The point is not that they used napalm, but that they lied about it, as they have so much else.
posted by wsg at 11:57 AM on August 5, 2003


sticks to the skin, burns even underwater. gotta love that jellied petrol.
posted by Hackworth at 11:58 AM on August 5, 2003


Is there something I'm missing here?


Probably.
posted by the fire you left me at 11:59 AM on August 5, 2003


The targets were soldiers, not civilians. I understand the outrage during the Vietnam war when napalm was used against civilian filled villages, but against soldiers I don't see it as such a huge problem. Sure, it is a really horrible way to die, but then again, so's a bullet wound to the stomach. And it's not like it's ABC weaponry either.

From reading the report, it doesn't sound like the usage of this napalm-like weaponry was frivolous, either. The targets were military held bridges. Yet the usage of the words "firebombed the Iraqis" connotes images of the devastation of the Second World War and the fire bombings of cities like Tokyo and Dresden.
posted by dazed_one at 11:59 AM on August 5, 2003


Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

posted by thomcatspike at 12:03 PM on August 5, 2003


Wal-Mart sucks!
posted by Witty at 12:08 PM on August 5, 2003


Napalm sticks to kids
posted by kirkaracha at 12:14 PM on August 5, 2003


hey! dammit witty! i buy ALL my napalm and napalm accessories at wal-mart.
posted by quonsar at 12:16 PM on August 5, 2003


According to Vectorsite, Mark 77's are "napalm" bombs. In fact, they are so indistinguishable from Vietnam-era napalm bombs that no distinguishing information is mentioned at all in the article.
posted by VulcanMike at 12:16 PM on August 5, 2003


The targets were soldiers, not civilians

Fill up a water balloon and tie it off. Throw it at the door to your house. Do not get the walls next to the door wet.

Bonus points: Blindfold yourself, spin around, and throw the water balloon at where you suspect the door is.
posted by Hildago at 12:18 PM on August 5, 2003


Who exactly is surprised by this? Is this a revelation to anyone? As tfylm's link reminds us, this ain't exactly new.

Oh my god! A government is lying to its people! An army is using weapons! People are being hurt or killed! The outrage!

I'm sorry, I just don't see what there is to be worked up over. I guess I just assume this stuff is already going on. I'd be more surprised if it didn't happen, frankly.

I'm already well aware that war is bad. Tell me something I don't know.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:23 PM on August 5, 2003


Hildago:

How about this: I use a balloon filled to only 20 - 30% capacity with water and I put heavy strapping tape on three sides. If I throw the balloon hard enough, it will burst, but the fluid inside will spray outward in a cone constrained by the strapping tape. Depending on the strength of the burst and the viscosity of the fluid (napalm is very viscous) the splash radius wouldn't leave the confines of the door.

And if I take a good bearing on the door before you blindfold me, I'll hit it every time.
posted by mrmanley at 12:23 PM on August 5, 2003


"Fill up a water balloon and tie it off. Throw it at the door to your house. Do not get the walls next to the door wet.

Bonus points: Blindfold yourself, spin around, and throw the water balloon at where you suspect the door is."


Ummm, hildago, doesn't the above apply to all bombs? After all, the all have splash damage. If you want to argue the pros and cons of all area effect weaponry, I don't think this is the place to do it.
posted by dazed_one at 12:23 PM on August 5, 2003


they all*
posted by dazed_one at 12:24 PM on August 5, 2003


Oh my god! A government is lying to its people!

Yes. Your government is lying to you, to be more specific. Such things are good to know about when it comes time for the next election so you can vote for the other guy.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:34 PM on August 5, 2003


Vote for the other guy?

Meet the new boss
The same as the old boss


The Dems are the same as the Reps, deep down. The only putative differences are all a matter of marketing.
posted by alumshubby at 12:41 PM on August 5, 2003


The Dems are the same as the Reps, deep down. The only putative differences are all a matter of marketing.

hmm. i can think of a few general differences: abortion; tax philosophy; environmental regulation; drug policy; social security privatization. i'm sure there's a few more.

don't get me wrong. i'm a Peace and Freedom supporter (not a member). i think the Reps and Dems both suck ass. but it's very hard to argue that they're "the same."

care to elaborate on "deep down"? or care not to derail this thread? /ownderail
posted by mrgrimm at 12:48 PM on August 5, 2003


If I were a general, I'd probably love napalm too.

(lyrics by Colin Moulding, from XTC)

"Generals and Majors"

"Generals and Majors ah ah
they're never too far
from battlefields so glorious
out in a world of their own
They'll never come down
till once again victorious

Generals and Majors always
seem so unhappy 'less they got a war

Generals and Majors ah ah
like never before are tired of being actionless.

Calling Generals and Majors
Generals and Majors everywhere
Calling Generals and Majors
your World War III is drawing near

Generals and Majors ah ah
They're never too far
away from men who made the grade
out in a world of their own
They'll never come down
until the battle's lost or made

Generals and Majors ah ah
like never before, are tired of being in the shade."
 
posted by troutfishing at 12:49 PM on August 5, 2003


alumshubby: The deal is that if they keep getting voted out then they might clue in.

It's either that or we start stockpiling for the revolution.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:49 PM on August 5, 2003


Oh my god! Let's sue someone!
posted by angry modem at 12:49 PM on August 5, 2003


Maybe if we burned a few more people they'd learn not to do that one thing we don't want them to do.
Anymore.
posted by Outlawyr at 1:14 PM on August 5, 2003


I found a particularly damning article on this from the war on the destruction of Safwan Hill.

"Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald. But a navy spokesman in Washington, Lieutenant Commander Danny Hernandez, denied that napalm - which was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 - was used.

"We don't even have that in our arsenal," he said."


The Pentagon subsequently issued a statement to the Herald:

"Your story ('Dead bodies everywhere', by Lindsay Murdoch, March 22, 2003) claiming US forces are using napalm in Iraq, is patently false. The US took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. - Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense."
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:24 PM on August 5, 2003


its not napalm... its a mark 77 firebomb, read the article, totally different things, one has less benzine or something, so they are totally different. mm hmm
posted by outsider at 1:31 PM on August 5, 2003


patently false

Has that patent been issued or is it still pending?
posted by srboisvert at 1:31 PM on August 5, 2003


Hildago, mrmanley: Fill your balloons with acid and you'll have a better analogy.
posted by Cerebus at 1:41 PM on August 5, 2003


The legalities involved seem to relate specifically to two documents -- the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, and the 1980 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.

There are sections in both documents that would seem to forbid the use of napalm and napalm-like weapons.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:55 PM on August 5, 2003


Fill up a water balloon and tie it off. Throw it at the door to your house. Do not get the walls next to the door wet.

Hildago, mrmanley: Fill your balloons with acid and you'll have a better analogy.

If you really want to find out, homemade napalm is easily made using a mixture of equal parts gasoline and pulverized styrofoam.

Kids, don't try this at home. Ever.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:03 PM on August 5, 2003


So, what is the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction" again?
posted by moonbiter at 2:46 PM on August 5, 2003


Q: So, what is the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction" again?
A: any weapons *they* have.
posted by lathrop at 3:06 PM on August 5, 2003


Maybe if we burned a few more people they'd learn not to do that one thing we don't want them to do.

Well, that is why these things are used, after all. It comes down to an ethical question: is it better to kill x in a horrible way to scare n * x into surrendering or running away, or is it better to kill the lot of them with less horrible weapons?

As far as accuracy goes, isn't a high explosive bomb's killing radius something like meters = kgs of explosive. So a 500 pound bomb kills anyone within 240 meters?
posted by ednopantz at 3:13 PM on August 5, 2003


Depending on the strength of the burst and the viscosity of the fluid (napalm is very viscous) the splash radius wouldn't leave the confines of the door.

and if I take a good bearing on the door before you blindfold me, I'll hit it every time.


Really? You should probably sell this amazing technology to the army, then, because just in case you didn't figure out my incredibly clever metaphor, I wasn't really talking about water balloons, I was talking about bombs, and bombing always end up killing things you didn't mean to kill. Maybe that was before we developed strapping tape technology, though.

See, I don't think that being able to force the napalm into precise geometric shapes is going to protect the next Red Cross hospital we accidentally bomb, the next aspirin factory, the next secret military installation that turns out to be a suburban neighborhood. Maybe one day we'll get so good at it that we can spell out "Let's Roll" in giant flaming napalm letters over downtown Baghdad.

Actually, what I want is napalm that is so smart it only kills terrorists and hippies, then after the war is over it teaches children how to read. I guess that's what it would take to make me lose the sense of disgust and anger I get when I hear that my country never stopped dropping napalm on people, it just changed the name to something else so we wouldn't notice.

One day perhaps napalm and I will shake hands and be friends, but until then I guess I have to stick to my hunch and put myself firmly in the "anti napalm bombing" camp.
posted by Hildago at 3:25 PM on August 5, 2003


>Oh my god! A government is lying to its people!

The apathy expressed here about lies and corruption is far worse than a million napalm bombs.
posted by skallas at 3:25 PM on August 5, 2003


How about "flaming dung" bombing Hildago, are you against that too? Does it really even matter that we're talking about napalm and how horrible it is and that it kills people... sometimes the innocent? Would you rather we change it to "cluster bombs" or maybe "anti-personel flechette grenades"? People are talking napalm (er, yea) and you're mad because we aren't talking about how bad WAR is.

The apathy expressed here about lies and corruption is far worse than a million napalm bombs.

Hey everybody, skallas thinks we aren't throwing a big enough fit. Let's show a little effort yo.

Gimme a B...
posted by Witty at 3:42 PM on August 5, 2003


Cluster bombs and flechette grenades are other matters entirely. I'm vaguely aware that cluster bombs are considered gauche by the international community. I know nothing about flechettes outside the context of Shadowrun. However, I've seen pictures and read texts about napalm, so I know how terrible it is, what the outcry against it was, how we should never have used it, never should again. I can speak to that. I'm not talking about how bad war is, I'm talking about how bad napalm is.

If you think the argument against napalm can't be made without a shitload of corrollaries involving cluster bombs and anti-personnel weapons, then maybe I'll do some research and get back to you, but I don't think that's necessary, because we should all be able to agree that napalm (by any other name) should not have been dropped on those soldiers. That's what I want to argue about.

Or no.. fuck it, I don't want to argue about it, I don't want to lay out a thesis and support it, I just want to chime in with my staunch disagreement with the decision to drop fucking incendiary firebombs that can't be put out and produce nearly untreatable burn wounds. So there, I'm done.
posted by Hildago at 4:12 PM on August 5, 2003


Skallas - well be told. Next time we won't hit you with apathy, it'll be the real thing.
posted by Joeforking at 4:24 PM on August 5, 2003


Hildago, how many asprin factories or Red Cross hospitals were hit during the last war?

The US government has spent more money coming up with directly target munitions designed to hit their target and only their target than any other country.

Napalm? It's horrible, horrible stuff. So is 500 pounds of TNT. So is a bullet to the gut. So is a HEAT round on a tank, which doesn't explode the inside of a tank but bursts through the armor and then ignites everything inside, humans included. War sucks. So does death. Unfortunately, in war, you attempting to kill as many of the enemy, with as little loss to yourself, as possible. It involves horrors I can only imagine.

The point is, napalm used against military targets strikes me as a legitmate use of weaponry. This napalm was apparently used on bridges. Why? Because conventional bombs would have destroyed the bridges, and Iraqi infrastructure. So napalm is used. It burns, it gets rid of the military guarding the bridges, while preserving them for the future.

If you're against war in general, that's one thing. But if you agree that war happens sometimes, and that when it happens its best to win as quickly as possible with as little collateral damage as possible to associated civilians and infrastructure, I don't see what's so bad about napalm usage in this case.
posted by pjgulliver at 4:25 PM on August 5, 2003


The US government has spent more money coming up with directly target munitions designed to hit their target and only their target than any other country.

True that, but I think that Hidalgo was speaking about the times when they aim perfectly at the wrong thing. The pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was one such instance.

It is impossible to seperate the ecological damage done by napalm from that of the other disgusting and crude killing gels employed in Vietnam, but it can't be good, right? I would venture to guess that inextinguishable flaming gasoline jelly is even worse than depleted uranium.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:27 PM on August 5, 2003


Hildago, how many asprin factories or Red Cross hospitals were hit during the last war?

ICRC confirms the bombing of a hospital during the attack on Baghdad. An aspirin factory in the Sudan was Tomahawked during the Clinton presidency. No, it's not during the last war, but what the hell difference would that make, unless I was trying to blame the inevitable failure of weapons guidance systems on the Bush regime? I'm not doing that, at least not today.

The US government has spent more money coming up with directly target munitions designed to hit their target and only their target than any other country.

Pointing, perhaps, to the conclusion that no matter how much money you spend, you still can't control who gets killed when you drop a bomb.

Unfortunately, in war, you attempting to kill as many of the enemy, with as little loss to yourself, as possible.

Yet, it's not the law of the jungle, or at least we say it's not. We sign conventions and make promises that limit the strict calculus you're mentioning -- we even do things that are contrary to it: for instance, we don't execute prisoners as a matter of course, and we don't, even though it would be terribly effective, use chemical weapons on enemy troops. Therefore, I conclude that there are limits on warfare, that those limits derive from the claims we make of being civilized and humane, and that, therefore, it is relevant to single out the use of a weapon that I believe is uncivilized and inhumane.

Again, if you want to talk about other weapons that might or might not be as bad as napalm, go ahead, but that's not what I'm talking about. I don't believe the fact that I don't include all weapons everywhere in my argument doesn't mean much -- there's plenty of precedent for singling out particular weapons and tactics even at the preclusion of equally bad ones.

The point is, napalm used against military targets strikes me as a legitmate use of weaponry.

But it was not the only way to get that bridge. It was simply the most direct and most cheap in terms of friendly lives -- we didn't want to risk Americans by assaulting it from the ground. We could also have flooded the area with nerve gas, and that would have done the job too, but we didn't. Why? Because we've decided that's dirty pool. My point, apropos to this example, is this: Napalm is also dirty pool.

When we decided we won't use nerve gas in war, we did it with full knowledge that we would be removing an effective weapon from our arsenal, possibly costing lives, but we did it anyway. Do not, therefore, tell me that the coalition forces could not have considered assaulting the bridge by foot because they have to do whatever preserves the most lives. That's obviously not the case.

If you're against war in general, that's one thing. But if you agree that war happens sometimes, and that when it happens its best to win as quickly as possible with as little collateral damage as possible to associated civilians and infrastructure, I don't see what's so bad about napalm usage in this case.

1. You can't control who napalm kills
2. Napalm kills excruciatingly, or disfigures permanently

Thus, no, I disagree with you.

To say that napalm minimizes collateral damage to civilians is absolutely ludicrous. It does nothing of the sort. It's also not representative of the kind of ethics I want my country to represent. An American life is not so much more important to me that I don't mind dropping hellfire on a target to avoid the (increasingly minor) chance that One of Ours will actually have to take a bullet.
posted by Hildago at 5:50 PM on August 5, 2003


I don't believe the fact that I don't include all weapons everywhere in my argument doesn't mean much

... in my argument means much...

Which still doesn't sound terribly elegant, but then neither is my argument. Ha!
posted by Hildago at 5:54 PM on August 5, 2003


remember people - iraq posed a "grave and growing danger" to the united states and it's citizens. at least we haven't started boiling people, some of our allies in the war on terror on the other hand...
posted by specialk420 at 6:53 PM on August 5, 2003


hildago, I believe it's hidalgo

remember that movie a few years back with Meg Ryan and Denzel Washington and Matt Damon, set during Gulf War 1991, where different soldier's recollections of Meg's character are retold.

Well they used napalm, or some sort of fiery bomb
posted by firestorm at 6:57 PM on August 5, 2003


This napalm was apparently used on bridges.

Somehow, pjgilliver, I think the name 'Safwan Hill' perhaps helps blow that particular weasely justification out of the water. Or off the hill.

insomnia_lj beat me to it: an embedded reporter relates what's passed on by an officer who was part of the bloody attack, then gets refuted by the DoD. (And if you look at the news archives, any reference to 'napalm' gets scrubbed from reports pretty damn quick.)

Sadly, the US took a specific, explicit opt-out on the incendiary weapons protocol of the CCW. Which doesn't really jibe with the facts.

Perhaps the US calls its firebombs 'I Can't Believe It's Not Napalm': 'all the capacity to burn flesh, with none of the calories or historical flashbacks!'

Obviously Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, is a big fucking liar, who deserves, for being a big fucking liar, to be showered in napalm while people light up cigarettes around him. The big fucking liar. (Hi, Google.)
posted by riviera at 7:05 PM on August 5, 2003


This napalm was apparently used on bridges. Why? Because conventional bombs would have destroyed the bridges, and Iraqi infrastructure. So napalm is used. It burns, it gets rid of the military guarding the bridges, while preserving them for the future.

This brings to mind the neutron bomb, in the '70s dubbed the ultimate capitalist weapon. Capable of killing thousands of people without damaging property.
posted by JackFlash at 8:35 PM on August 5, 2003


hildago, I believe it's hidalgo

Well, no, not if you're referring to my name, it's not. But thanks for the correction.

remember that movie a few years back with Meg Ryan and Denzel Washington and Matt Damon, set during Gulf War 1991, where different soldier's recollections of Meg's character are retold.

Well they used napalm, or some sort of fiery bomb


I can understand individual words you're using, but when I try to figure out what they are supposed to mean, I just draw a blank.
posted by Hildago at 8:44 PM on August 5, 2003


This brings to mind the neutron bomb, in the '70s dubbed the ultimate capitalist weapon. Capable of killing thousands of people without damaging property

Which is just way off the mark. Neutron bombs -- enhanced radiation weapons -- weren't thought up so you could nuke a city and then move in after shoveling out the irradiated corpses.

Neutron bombs were thought up so you could nuke a Soviet tank battallion (more accurately, cook the tank crews in their vehicles) and not kill everyone in the picturesque German village three miles away.

Which doesn't make them any more fun than any other bucket of instant sunshine, but at least have the story straight.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:35 PM on August 5, 2003


> Next time we won't hit you with apathy, it'll be the real thing.

The difference I'm expressing, I think, is very important. Its arguable whether or not incendiary devices are needed in modern warfare or if its inhumane, but what shouldn't be a matter of argument is being lied to by your own government.

The "So what? The government lied" attitude only leads to less transparency and oversight. If the military wants to use firebombs then they should at least come clean when asked.

Aslo, for reference, the firebomb raids in WWII killed more people than the nuclear detonations. Death by napalm comes either through burn or asphyxiation. Wired had an article a little while back about a portable fuel air bomb that could asphyxiate a large crowd or a group of soldiers. How this and napalm isn't a chemical weapon (which almost all are banned) is beyond me.

In the immortal words of Grog: "Fire Bad!"
posted by skallas at 10:15 PM on August 5, 2003


Hildago, I think I'm in love with you. That's all. <33333333
posted by Hildegarde at 12:29 AM on August 6, 2003


I'm having trouble understanding the apathy here - and out in the real world.

"Wars kill. Yawn. Government lies to people - so what"? spoken in a bored, fin-de-siecle, "I'm so world-weary and cynical it's beautiful baby!" voice.

your government is lying to you. not to "it's people" but to *you*. In the same way, *my* government has been lying to *me*.

We don't live in totalitarian states. We live in places where we all get hard-ons about our parliamentary democracies, our freedoms, the right to pursue happiness. We get such hard-ons that we regularly attempt to export these silly little oh-so-tedious ideas. Often to those who seem inexplicably not to want them.

And our governments - whom we elect to *serve* us - are lying to us and trying to turn themselves into our masters.

I think that's a big deal. Meanwhile, let's over, yawn ostentatiously, and take our soma.
posted by Pericles at 1:39 AM on August 6, 2003


Mark me up in the "No" column.

This sort of apathetic response is nothing new, though. Up here in the great white north, our soon-to-be Prime Minister (who has been all but annointed as such due to our fun one-party system we're trying out) took forty-five billion dollars from civic funds (the Employment Insurance program) when he was the finance minister. He did this in order to "balance the budget"--he paid off forty-seven billion dollars. Nobody really seems to care that 95% of the money was from EI, or that they'd successfully managed to create another tax for themselves.

I guess after a certain point people just stop worrying about these things and start buying Sars masks.
posted by The God Complex at 3:59 AM on August 6, 2003


Part of the point of the Geneva Conventions is to prohibit the use of weapons that are:

1) indiscriminate, as in non-targettable (e.g., chemical and biochemical weapons, both of which have effects after release that can't be reliably contained or directed)

or

2) intended only to wound or cause excessive wounding (e.g., fragmentation bullets).

Incendiaries in general fall in a nice grey area. They have clear military value against non-personnel targets-- clearing foliage & buildings, destroying fuel & ammunition depots, or for sterilizing sites producing bioweapons-- but they have secondary effects that are indiscriminate (out-of-control fires razing an entire village, for instance), and cause excessive wounding (burns are, on the whole, frequently non-fatal and far more terrible to suffer than a gunshot or fragment wound).

As a result, the Geneva Convention Incendiary Weapons Protocol prohibits use of incendiaries against personnel, but they are allowed against non-personnel targets-- with caveats: no use against targets among civilians (unless well separated and "all feasible precautions" are taken to minimize civilian damage).

The US has approved this protocol with the stipulation that we reserve the right to use incendiaries against military targets inside civilian concentrations when we judge it will cause fewer casualties than alternative weapons.

That said, it's clear to me that the intentional targetting of Iraqi soldiers with incendiaries is illegal, as would be the use of incendiaries against inappropriate non-personnel targets (like a bridge).

But to say we don't have napalm in the inventory is like dithering over the definition of 'is'.
posted by Cerebus at 6:33 AM on August 6, 2003


I'm having trouble understanding the apathy here - and out in the real world.

I already know the government lies to me. If I got upset every time I found out about a new example I'd be too agitated to get anything done. The general corruption, arrogance, and dishonesty of the Bush administration is one of the running themes here at Metafilter, and we question everything they do or say. We all knew the whole Iraq war was a big heap of lies from the start, and we all said so, and it didn't make any difference. Are we supposed to be surprised, now, when the feds spend as much time lying about the war afterwards as they did beforehand?
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:10 AM on August 6, 2003


Thanks Mars... exactly the point. We can't argue about lying/not-lying in every single thread about Bush or Iraq (we COULD I guess, but it's old). There's no more or less apathy here than any other thread.
posted by Witty at 9:05 AM on August 6, 2003


« Older The High Hat...   |   The World Triathlon Corporatio... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments