I smell Beauchamp all over this.

And it smells like a movement, too.

OMG!  Shortages during war time?  Shocked I say, shocked!  Suck it up there "Captain."  Remember, improvise, adapt and overcome.  Anybody wanna bet that this "Captain" is a Vote Vets ass wipe?  Very Jon Soltzesque.

Congratulations!  Once again, Ace of Spades has become the laughing stock of the internets.

Uh, anybody wann take that one, or should I jump in?

Don't you see, Harrison?  Every time Jake Tapper comes of looking like as ass, people laugh at Ace.

God, do I have to spell everything out for you?

Of. Off. Whatever.

Okay.

--We didn't have any up-armored humvees to train with in Germany in '05, either.  Reason being?  They're all being sent downrange, where they should be.  We trained in soft-skinned trucks like everyone else.  Up-armored jobbies are just heavier and have less space inside.

--It is very possible for a platoon to be cherry-picked for people (A guy reenlists, is given choice of duty station, picks somwhere else, and goes)  but this generally happens AFTER a deployment.  Units are sent downrange at full strength or as close to as possible.  I wouldn't call it impossible, just highly imporobable.

--He says they didn't have enough training time.  Every goddamn platoon commander on Earth says that; it's part of they're fucking job.

--They had problems getting heavy machine guns fixed.  Welcome to reality, genius.

--Unarmored flatbed humvees were SOP in 2003.  We put layers of sandbags across the bed for protection against IEDs, and paid local national welders to make steel plate armor for the sides, and steel floorplates for the driver and the TC.  Should they have had up-armored humvees?  I suppose so.  But this is hardly without precedent.

--The 'mounting a Dishka' thing gives me pause.  I never went to Afghanistan, but in Iraq I never saw anything that big used by any Coalition troops--and for that matter, I never saw any use of captured weapons that wasn't 'under the table'.

Congratulations Rocketeer, you're a victim of online trools who would never dare come up to you in real life and say shit to your face; such trolls who go around a campus of a university after they graduated 3 years ago seeing if they can get laid because the only thing they've lost is their anal-virginity.

I don't know about Afghan ROEs but:  "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees."

So a "platoon" of 24 men use enemy-marked vehicles? One thing to use "unarmored flatbed humvees", especially for Afghan where armor is GG'd by mountains, but pickup trucks?

Beauchamp!

The 'mounting a Dishka' thing gives me pause. 

Wouldn't be a problem if you had PSAS.

I noticed you got some money from [Barack] Obama’s PAC at the very beginning.

You do your research.

Do you prefer Obama?

Oh, I am staying out of the presidential primaries. I am not going to get involved in the presidential primaries.

For you, it’s just a matter of who is going to be nominated and who is not.

Isn't a Dishka almost twice as heavy as a ma deuce? 

We know that up-armoured Humvees were thin on the ground for a while - in fact production of them was ramped up specifically because of conditions in Iraq - at the time Afghanistan was relatively quiet, and then it started to heat up over there too. 

I'm also not too surprised that there was a shortage of training ammo for heavy weapons - and I don't care that much.  These are weapons that soldiers should already know how to fire - and they can do refresher once they hit the ground.  I'd rather have the ammo in Iraq or Afstan where it can be used to kill bad guys AND for training then sitting in a bunker in upstate NY.  While 5.56 rifle ammo is availilble off the shelf from a number of sources around the world, .50 and 40mm is rarer and I would speculate that the appropriate factories are running flat out.

Like most lefty/msm stories, this one has some real grains of truth behind it, but any inconvenient (ie mitigating) facts have been strained out for maximum impact / truthiness. 

Also someone should tell Obama and Hillary that if they get socialized healthcare then the troops will have to ride into battle in Iltis and G-Wagons like the Canadians - and also have no helicopters, like the Canadians, thereby causing them to take casulties which are disproportionately much higher. 

"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't.

Uh, and?

It's funny how Obama can't really articulate how or why this matters.

Mind you, Congress, yes Obama himself, is responsible for funding the war.

Surreal. 

Oh, SUUUUURRRRREEEEE, it's okay, and you conservative warmongers LOVE IT, when Rambo jumps up on an enemy gun-truck and uses the 16 inch cannon on that gun-truck to slaughter tens of thousands of poor misunderstood Burmese (Burmoid?) army draftees, but when REAL, LIVE, IMPERIALIST RUNNING DOG AMERICAN SOLDIERS grab "enemy" weapons to then oppress those misunderstood "enemies" you all get in a huff! 

Where's my bong?

Before I heard someone had actually talked to the officer, I assumed that Obama had gotten US troops confused with British troops, which have had some specific equipment shortages.

I have heard of US troops carrying an AK-47 for the possibility of using captured ammo, but this was due to the limitations of how much ammo they could personally carry, not any actual supply shortages.

Now they seem to be sticking with the story, which is probably a bigger gamble than they realize.  I think if those kinds of shortages really had happened the way they're described, someone would have tried to address them by now, rather than feeding them to a Democratic presidential candidate.

Posted by: nuke | Feb 22, 2008 4:07:38 PM

The Devil is always in the details.  So much of the ... platform ... worldview ... whatever you want to call it, of the left depends on a fuzzy, sort of plausible spin on subjects and statements in which the actual details matter, yet are oddly unimportant to, and unexplored by, the view holder.  

Sometimes its appears deliberate, as in the Times hit piece on McCain.  The points in the story, taken one at a time in a kind of unfocused view, are at least colorably true.  The implication, never quite spelled out, remains unsupported and when viewed critically, falls apart..

In Obama's case, I just chalk it up to not understanding the military and hearing about this tail second hand, he gets the benefit of the doubt, the NYT, not so much.

Not all of the blogosphere is in agreement on this. Here's a comment I noticed at one site:

   I note that the raving, drooling lunatic John Cole is having none of this. After considering the Jake Tapper story he concludes in a blog post, typically riddled with bad grammar and misspellings: "...I would take this a grain of salt when you compare it to the vault of knowledge these bloggers have procured over a lifetime of arranging GI Joe dolls while watching betamax copies of Uncommon Valor in the basement apartment they rent from their parents. I know it is a tough call, but I am gonna go with Obama, Tapper, and Phil Carter on this."

John Cole

Heh.

You just wait till Obama finds a roomful of elderly seniors who start to tell him stories about how they froze their ass off in Belgium in December 1944.Short on equipment, no air support, no cold weather equipment. Boy, is he going to be mad to find out that we treated our fighting men in such a horrible way.  What the hell were we doing in Belgium? Belgium wasnt a threat, how could we ask our men to suffer like that?

Pretty soon hes going to ask for an congressional inquiry into this whole branch of the civil service called the Military. Why I have heard tales told around the campfire that they actually expect men in the submarine service to be away from home for up to six months at a time!

This is outrageous!

This dumping ofswear words is not helpful.

Heh.  Thanks for the tip, fred of goodshit.phlap.net

^{Posted by: Bluto | Feb 22, 2008 4:00:16 PM}

Love that comment.  If it's still there, that is.

Apparently there are 20 soldiers, 4 squad leaders, a Company XO, a Company Commander, a Battalion S-1 and a Battalion Commander that were unavailable for comment to verify this story.

The left has a habit of claiming victory when some small detail is corroborated.

I'm glad you noticed this and called it out.  Too many on the right just go along with it and that's aggravating.  Jamil Hussein was a perfect example; we knocked that guy off the agitprop beat and proved most of his stories were BS, yet some took the fact the AP corroborated some part of the story and countered some claims (he probably existed, counter to speculation, though under another name) as a defeat.

Why don't you just suck it up and act like a man?

You first, madam.

Actually, it looks like Ace did exactly what he is accusing "the left" of doing: you found one minor detail that was described in an ambiguous manner, and now you're pretending that you haven't been thoroughly pwned.

<i>

Okay, whatever.

Hey, Yglesias? I'm sorry about your manateesque metabolism.</i>

That's a rather classless way to admit defeat.

"Vote Vets"

LOL- I saw a snarky lib editorial in a local rag here in PA smearing the GOP, claiming that the GOP are liars b/c they claim "no veterans support congressman Patrick Murphy"

The snarky dousches proof of the lie?

He googled a group called "vote vets"- who strongly support Congressman Murphy!

No mention of the uhhh, "affiliation" of vote vets.

Either he was truly too dumb to know- or hes a filthy liar like the rest of his fellow hacks and shills.

Color me impressed- an anti war democrat veteran organization supports an anti war democrat veteran!!!!!

HOw does all this prove Obama will be an even remotely capable commander in chief?

Or president for that matter?

I mean, if his point is that the troops are underfunded- that would cause a Senator who no showed on the funding votes a bit of a problemo, no?

So let me get this straight.

Heh.  I'll be here all week

Doug, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," 

Again, this alleged event took place in 2003, not in 2008...

1 - you can never have too many weapons unless they're non functional or poor quality. Picking up an enemy MG here and there is useful and AK's are fun!.

2 - a number of guys I know who have been over have told me that their pre deployment training was not to a full combat level. Simulators, practice exercises, and not enough live fire practice. You can never have enough practice.

3 - every guy I've spoken to who has come back has said that their replacements were not up to speed and were not well prepared. Lax security practices...that kind of thing.  New guys have a much higher casualty rate. It's a given.

Much of this is simply slant. The military can always do more. But they are stretched thin and doing an incredible job with the tools given them. We're fighting 2 wars thousands of miles apart and yet most of the civilian population has very little contact with the realities of the military.The politicians run their agendas and play their games while the consequences come home in body bags and medevacs.

It seems at best Tapper's report confimrs some details of Obama's claim but also confimrs so much of what critics in th eblogosphere point out. At best, he gets a half right.

More importantly, how many of the troops that left PCS'ed or moved on to new assignments and then ended up in Iraq while with their new units. I serve3d in the 6th ID Light and can tell you that we never had 39 troops in any of our platoons. Never even close. 24 was just about the average for us. And as far as the lack of armored humvees in theather and train with, well it make sense that they would be in Iraq where they were needed as ashcanicatn was pretty low intensity at that time.

Perhaps most important to me, this story is five years old. Things have changed dramatically since then.

61Isn't a Dishka almost twice as heavy as a ma deuce?

Nope, DShK weighs 34 kg, M2 weighs 38 kg.  Pretty close, actually.

Fair enough - my error - I mixed it up with the KPV

And as far as training with non-armored humvees is the states it could always be worse. When we trained with the Canadians in the 80's they used LAV's to simulate tanks as all their Leopard I's were in Germany. They did not have one tank in the Regiment we trained with in Alberta.

Rummy was right, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.

On troop shortages, guess what? It happens. The Army deploys units as BCTs. Brigade combat teams. All units train up before deployment. If they are found to be non-combat ready, they don't deploy. Mind you I'm talking about combat units. Not combat support/service units.

My medical platoon was short eight medics, we were still rated combat ready. But before we deployed, we took medics from our two sister battalions to be at full strengh. And this was to Afghanistan. In 2002-2003.

We didn't have any uparmors. We didn't have the problem with IEDs then. We never heard of them.

We captured tons of enemy weapons and munitions. Some Russian, some Chinese, some other. Hell we even captured some muzzle loaders left over from the Brittish.

But we never used them in combat.

And one other thing. I do recall using a locals "jingle truck" for transport once. If you've been to Afghanistan, you'll know what I'm talking about.

To clarify about taking medics from other battalions.

My bat. from 1st brigade was attached to 3rd brigade for deployment. The two remaining bats. from 1st bde and the bat. from 3rd bde. replaced us eight months later.

Any questions I'll do my best to answer.

I caution against taking a "this couldn't happen because doctrine is this" approach, and using that as the BS indicator.  I think that Obama was telling him the truth - he id hear from a captain some stuff.  Whether it means what he thinks it means, and is certainly implying that means, well, that is something else entirely. 

During Desert Shield/Desert Storm (okay, I am old like PA, and admittedly the Army does stuff somewhat differently like the BCT) lower priority units had personnel reassigned to deployed units in onesie-twosies.  I was in Italy, and we weren't a deployable unit (TDA not MTOE for people who get that), had a friend with a transportation platoon, sent ALL of his drivers to Saudi Arabia.  But his platoon didn't go, just all his drivers, 8 in total, I think.  Later, afterward during Provide Comfort, I had to attach 4 of my soldiers to round out another EOD detachment that deployed. 

So it seems perfectly reasonable that this CPT (then LT) had a platoon that was in garrison and had people reassigned, and then the rotation order cam for his unit, and he hadn't been replenished.  He didn't have his complete allotment.  Boo-effing-hoo, LT, there were LTs commanding infantry companies in Korea with 85% casualties and they still drove on and did their mission.  So man up and do your job, you go to war with the platoon you have, not the platoon you wish you had.  Bitching and moaning is a soldiers perogative, if they aren't bitching there is something really wrong.  But he obviously has some political axe to grind if he is taking this problem to a candidate for President.  Because the President is manning your platoon, right numbnuts?  

Jeebus.  You have a job.  Do it.   

Opinionator - well, in the 1990s that was me.   Not in the LAV, mind you, but running nearby carrying a Bangalore Torpedo or some other silly item.  Good times.  I still remember when we decided to simulate LAWS and Gustavs by firing para-flares at the enemy "tanks".  SPRAAAANG! 

Good Times.

Ace,

Another tour de force.  And the comments, well, awesome.  You guys who have been over there, thank you.  And I mean that sincerely.  This coming from a guy who did a couple of tours in 91-92 to the shithole sandbox on merchants.  It was bad enough then but now is something different altogether.  Speaking as someone who's seen improvisation in peacetime, it really doesn't surprise that our military has had to do similar during war. 

I am embarrased to say that I got the "Ronny, Bobby, Ricky and Mike" reference without clicking the link.  That's unconscionable but it's also true. 

Listening to Obama makes me cringe.  I'd truly like to vote for the guy and would but for his naivete on all things related to foreign policy and the military.  He seems to view the military as a vessel needing to be recalled to home port and loaded down with health care and welfare, never to be sent from this hemisphere for any reason again.

Yea, this Lt/Capt is probably a VoteVets mouthpiece.  Doesn't denigrate his service but certainly calls into question his motivation.  God help us if he's to be CinC.   

God help us if he's to be CinC.   

Meaning Obama, of course.

It was in 2003 that I was in command of an Infantry Battalion in central Afghanistan. Originally we had 800 men but slowly one by one they were all transferred to other units. Most were sent to the IRS, it was tax time and they needed additional auditors. Those that were weren’t sent the IRS got sent to the National Parks Service. Yellowstone was hell; I heard one guy got mauled by a bear.

The equipment shortage was even worse. We were all out of chain gun rocket launchers. We had to kill all 100,000 innocent Iroquois civilians mostly with our bear hands. Sometimes we used rocks and knives but mostly we had to strangle them. I saw one fellow pick up an Afghan child turn him upside down and put his penis in his mouth, just to survive to the next day. One fellow, Corporal Ted I believe his name was, turned to killing civilians by drawing them in the Euphrates. He got the idea when he swerved in his (unarmored) Bradley fighting vehicle, to hit a dog and ended up in a river. The innocent civilian he had kidnapped in order to rape never made it back to the surface. After that Ted knew the best way to deal with the locals was to "take 'em for a ride". 

I ended up fighting the entire Taliban myself unarmed of course. The only weapon I had were my wits my fists and my trustie camel "Susan". but that is a story for a different day.

#91 Jim - you are a tool. 

Ace did not write that, I did, and your transference of a chickenhawk argument to him is just silly.  I wrote it, and I am a West Point graduate and a veteran, so you can put your chickenhawk where the sun don't shine. 

Read my whole post, you will see that I allow that Obama may have heard such a story, and that the story may even be true on the whole if not in the particulars, BUT - that it doesn't mean what Obama is implying that it means.  I also am saying that the guy who took his chickenshit story and peddled it to a Presidential candidate with the intent (honestly, why would you take this story to an opposition candidate, do you think, retroactively, he'll add troops to the platoon?) of creating a national scandal out of his platoon's manning, he needs to STFU and do his job. 

I agree with Drill's comment # 88

"The point Obama is making is that we started a war in Iraq when Iraq wasn't who attacked us and that we have diverted valuable resources from Afghanistant where the real fight against Al-Qaeda (who actually attacked us)  was happening and now Al-Qaeda has rebuilt its organization to where it's stronger than it has been in the last 6 years."

We should not be fighting wars to just to fight wars. Obama said we should use our military to protect our security and interest.Instead of nit picking on word smithing we needs to make decisions on what our strategy is. I am a strong supporter of the Military. I believe a primary purpose of our government is to protect us. I believe if you are going to fight a war, you fight to win. However you need to know what win means.  I admit I never thought we should have gone into Iraq, we should have stayed focused on Afghanintan. Was told the mission was accomplished years ago. However we have created a problem there, and we do need to resolve it. However other then provided billions to Bush investors, I do not know what our Irag strategy is. I do not think we have one. But at any cost we need to do all we can to protect our troops wherever they are.

Obama has my vote. I believe can can think strategically instead of just minor tactical manuvers.

However other then provided billions to Bush investors, I do not know what our Irag strategy is. I do not think we have one.

No offense intended, DcCid,  but the argument from personal ignorance is not a convincing debate point.

Obama has my vote. I believe can can think strategically instead of just minor tactical manuvers.

And the evidence for this would be, what? 

As an observation only, the original thread on this subject is still getting spammed by foul languaged drivebys, high fiving each other because none of us are defending the thread.  I'm assuming that someone linked the orginal thread and the lemmings being sent here are unaware of the concept of main page and the possiblity of other threads.

Its sad, and by that I mean retared as hell.

1.  Perhaps infantry platoons are somehow treated differently from the rest of the military, but when a deploying unit is short of, for instance, infantrymen, then that number of infantrymen are re-assigned to the deploying unit, making up its personnel shortfalls in a process sometimes called "cross-leveling."

Is it ideal to break-up a platoon team that has worked and trained well together? Absolutely not. Is it important that deploying units be as up-to-strength as possible so that breaking up the teams of non-deploying units is the lesser evil? Yes, it is.

Does the military's personnel management system occasionally fail to grasp that it is intended to serve the military's needs rather than the reverse? You betcha.

What I find odd, no, unconscionable, is that this would be done to a platoon that was itself deploying. WTF?

2.  Would a local commander, at the far end of a very, very long supply chain ever use captured weapons and ammunition to supplement, augment, or make-up shortfalls in his own unit's armament? Regulations Be Damned, you can bet your next paycheck he would (or he should find another line of work, where his overscrupulous attention to regulations written far from the battleground can be indulged without being to the detriment of his soldiers).

3.  Is the provision of the range-time, weaponry, and appropriate stocks of ammunition for troops preparing to deploy a priority? Yes, it is. Is providing those same items to units already in the field a somewhat higher priority? Yes, again. Does this (or other factors, to include negligence or incompetence up the chain of command all the way to the House Appropriations Committee) sometimes mean that units don't get all the necessary (nay, required) training resources before deploying? Yup. That happens. It was downright notorious, especially for deploying Reserve and Guard units leading up to OIF1, so I'm unsurprised that it could still be happening. No enough heads (if any) were made to roll for these failings back in 2002-3, so there's apparently no downside. After all, once the troops are deployed, they're no longer the concern of the commander of the Stateside training base.

I've quoted you and linked to you here:  http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/02/re-obamas-captain-speaks.html

[URL="http://www.brg8.com/"]شات[/URL]

Posted by: dave at May 20, 2008 10:37 AM (8MfJe)

Posted by: mazikaty at June 07, 2008 08:30 AM (MIKWT)

Posted by: اغاني at June 21, 2008 06:27 PM (S7alw)

Posted by: fewf at July 01, 2008 05:16 AM (rsuNv)

Posted by: fsdfs at July 13, 2008 09:43 PM (I1UCg)

Posted by: xinyaow at July 22, 2008 01:40 AM (2+E0Z)

Posted by: bxzb at August 03, 2008 08:14 PM (95RyE)

Posted by: 無料アダルト動画 at August 18, 2008 06:41 AM (ScZux)

Posted by: adipex on-line at September 28, 2008 05:16 AM (A+HTn)

Posted by: anime dickgirls at October 04, 2008 12:15 AM (IJKsx)

Posted by: anime girl of sexy at October 04, 2008 08:07 AM (woA+A)

Posted by: 主催人 at October 22, 2008 10:03 AM (b4bGZ)

Posted by: 会員制クラブ at October 23, 2008 07:11 AM (U6JQG)

Posted by: マダム請負人 at October 24, 2008 04:25 AM (U6JQG)

Posted by: 管理人 at October 26, 2008 04:37 AM (IDOsJ)

Posted by: 倶楽部オーナー at October 28, 2008 06:43 AM (IDOsJ)

Posted by: ラブビ管理人 at October 29, 2008 07:06 AM (4lD35)

Posted by: マネージャー at October 30, 2008 06:51 AM (4lD35)

Posted by: セフレ管理人 at October 31, 2008 06:10 AM (C0isU)

Posted by: ڈo‰ï‚¢ at November 01, 2008 03:00 AM (4vZp/)

Posted by: おっぱいママ at November 01, 2008 06:06 AM (C0isU)

Posted by: 求人担当 at November 02, 2008 07:22 AM (C0isU)

Posted by: エッチ度チェック at November 03, 2008 05:46 AM (C0isU)

Posted by: 新感覚バイト at November 04, 2008 04:30 AM (jt3ux)

Posted by: 管理人 at November 05, 2008 01:20 AM (jt3ux)

Posted by: セレブ支配人 at November 08, 2008 02:03 AM (/yuUr)

Posted by: 管理者 at November 09, 2008 05:49 AM (/yuUr)

Posted by: SMマニア at November 10, 2008 05:27 AM (/yuUr)

Posted by: マダム管理人 at November 11, 2008 04:40 AM (GbQP3)

Posted by: 救援部代理人 at November 12, 2008 01:52 AM (GbQP3)

Posted by: 診断先生 at November 13, 2008 01:29 AM (dOYX4)

Posted by: 倶楽部運営者 at November 15, 2008 03:17 AM (dOYX4)

Posted by: 精神年齢科先生 at November 17, 2008 04:59 AM (27Ag3)

Posted by: 係り員 at November 18, 2008 05:05 AM (27Ag3)

Posted by: 逆援助大好き at November 21, 2008 01:53 AM (KZiIm)

Posted by: 美代子 at November 22, 2008 05:24 AM (tQT4a)

Posted by: 在宅バイト at November 23, 2008 03:36 AM (tQT4a)

Posted by: 万能幹事君 at November 24, 2008 05:23 AM (tQT4a)

Posted by: オーナー at November 25, 2008 02:54 AM (tQT4a)

Posted by: 倶楽部オーナー at November 26, 2008 05:31 AM (GPC2S)

Posted by: 人事課 at November 28, 2008 02:39 AM (GPC2S)

Posted by: 激ウマ求人情報 at November 29, 2008 01:44 AM (P08Y5)

Posted by: セレブ請負人 at December 21, 2008 01:07 AM (m84na)

Posted by: wow gold at December 22, 2008 11:11 PM (fMiY/)

Posted by: runescape gold at January 03, 2009 02:38 AM (fMiY/)

Posted by: cabal online alz at January 03, 2009 02:44 AM (fMiY/)

Posted by: ڈo‰ï‚¢Œn at January 09, 2009 11:20 AM (WzcNG)

Posted by: wow power leveling at January 16, 2009 02:12 AM (jlcze)

Posted by: 支配人 at January 17, 2009 01:05 AM (BCtqm)

Posted by: 人事課 at January 19, 2009 11:43 PM (8ehYF)

Posted by: サイト管理者 at January 20, 2009 11:12 PM (95wZP)

Posted by: cheap latale gold at January 21, 2009 11:39 PM (fMiY/)

Posted by: チェッカー at January 30, 2009 12:36 AM (gEFru)

Posted by: 掲示板管理人 at February 07, 2009 02:05 AM (9AvLa)

Posted by: 運営者 at February 10, 2009 03:05 AM (3J0PR)

Posted by: SOS掲示板 at February 15, 2009 10:08 AM (vPwZ8)

Posted by: 掲示板管理者 at February 19, 2009 02:06 AM (6F53x)

Posted by: wedding dresses at March 04, 2009 12:08 AM (kugHN)

Posted by: سيف at March 08, 2009 02:47 AM (pfpIP)

Posted by: سيف at March 08, 2009 02:48 AM (pfpIP)

Posted by: سيف at March 08, 2009 02:49 AM (pfpIP)

Posted by: مون لايت at March 08, 2009 10:19 PM (BtnM1)

Posted by: سيف at March 10, 2009 01:30 AM (QQwzu)

Posted by: مون لايت at March 10, 2009 08:00 AM (72S1y)

Posted by: مون لايت at March 10, 2009 08:02 AM (72S1y)