main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I recall only the first part. Which, I think, is an incredibly lame excuse. The man got the surge he requested, on the time line he said he could do, in spite of tremendous opposition from all corners. Even the original press releases on the subject noted he wanted "somewhere between 30-40k." For perspective, there are over 90,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Is it really plausible to claim that everything failed solely because he got the low end of his own request?

    Smuggler: Though I didn't know you had posted it, what you said is mostly covered by what's above. I'll add, though, that a strategic review is hardly "getting jerked around." A new Administration was assuming definitive control of the war, which itself was at a crucial turning point, given the developments around Karzai's "election." Pausing to reassess the overall direction and purpose of the conflict was hardly inappropriate, especially in light of such a large request.
     
  2. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    He's going to be fired, and rightfully so. Describing the NSA as a "clown"? That's not going to stand.
     
  3. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    I think that 40,000 was the minimum.
     
  4. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But see, KW, it's another carry over from the no holds barred Bush years, where the bar for this type of behavior was either raised or lowered, depending on how one looks at it. I remember when discussing Iraq, that you felt strongly that military leaders should be able to, and almost had a duty to, criticize the President, including full on scorn, over policy issues. (At the time, was Abizaid the focus of the discussion or was it someone else?)

    Those of us who disagreed with you replied that no military official should slam the President in public, and that the arena for policy disputes are behind the scenes. Because if the previous examples had been minimized, McChrystal wouldn't have prior practice to fall back on now. Do you think this is another example of a double standard?

    In the article, most of McChrystal's comments weren't directed at the President. The most direct one was about how Obama seemed to put style above substance, but this is a fairly common criticism of the administration and isn't a isolated observation:

    Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. ...Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn?t go much better. ?It was a 10-minute photo op,? says an adviser to McChrystal. ?Obama clearly didn?t know anything about him, who he was. Here?s the guy who?s going to run his [expletive] war, but he didn?t seem very engaged. (McChrystal) was pretty disappointed.?

    Criticizing the National Security Advisor, Richard Holbrooke, or VP Biden, is less tactful, but none are in McChrystal's chain of command. But McChrystal's point is how all these politicians seem to only care about their own image, while not being overly concerned with actually getting anything done. There are some valid points of discussion here. McChrystal has been in the Army for 34 years. For a military general to sign off on an article like this, he must be getting ready for retirement, and he wants to stir the pot before he does.
     
  5. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    While that was his public recommendation, his final, formal request to the President was made in private, and not disclosed. That number, the one that is actually relevant, is believed to have included 30,000 within the range of acceptability.

    But besides, this whole debate is sort of surreal. Government is about compromise. No one gets 100% of what they want. What McChrystal got was as close as anyone could ask for. Does it really make sense to throw up his hands and say that now winning is "impossible" just because he didn't get his every single wish granted, as he might've in an ideal world? Come on.

     
  6. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    44, you never cease to amaze with your ability to obsfuscate and be obtuse. I'll just ignore any further comments you have on this issue, as I usually do, as they are virtually assured to be a waste of my time.
     
  7. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    That's not a problem. It's just that there are valid issues that are raised here. The most basic one is that you shouldn't clap and cheer when one general criticizes one President, and then a couple of years later act all disappointed when another general criticizes a different President based on who you like and don't like. Years ago I posted that military generals shouldn't be seen as critical of the administration, and you scoffed at me then, claiming that such opposition is more important than protocol. Now, your point seems to be exactly the opposite, more in line with my assertion all along. It doesn't matter which Presidents are the focus, but there is a "genie in the bottle" effect here. The standard was changed a couple of years ago, rightly or wrongly, on the allowable behavior of military leaders and their public criticism.

    Besides, using your original standard of observation vs protocol, McChrystal raises some valid points. If Obama is detached and more focused on his own image to the point of being detrimental to policy, shouldn't that at least be explored? That's always been the reason for the popular media.

    J-W: McChrystal's current concern isn't the past number of troops, but rather the current timeline. This is a reaction to WH spokesman Bill Burton's insistence that July 2011 remain a firm date to start to draw down the military role in Afghanistan. McChrystal's points are that 1)you can't announce any time lines as firm, as it just emboldens the enemy to resist until that date- and 2)He's not sure the Afghani government will be ready to begin the changeover, so it's going to be an empty promise.
     
  8. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    It's not his place to say any of that, and I never once cheered any active duty officer's criticism of any president. Sorry, 44. You're remembering things that were never said.

    Fire him.
     
  9. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Well, I thought about going back and cutting and pasting your posts from the previous Iraq War discussion threads, but it's not that important to undertake such a detailed task. At any rate, I think you've become much more accepting and understanding with regard to transparency and the office of the President. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good or bad thing, but I guess if it remains consistent, it breaks even.
     
  10. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    I posted shortly after Obama was elected that transparency would be an issue for the administration, and as with most things I've predicted, I've been pretty accurate. Not sure if that's what you're getting at here, but I mentioned it as a concern a long time ago.
     
  11. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    44, I find you analogy specious. The controversy around Abizaid involved him expressing an opinion on Iran which contradicted the rhetoric coming from the Bush Administration at the time, as well as State Department policy. He said that the country was not bent on suicide, and that a nuclear Iran could be manageable. A couple of things are notable about this. First off, he nowhere, directly or indirectly, criticized Bush or others in the administration. Second, and critically, he made a comment on an area of policy about which he had no direct involvement, either at the time, or conceivably under any circumstances. Thus, backing or applauding him means questioning the extent to which high profile officials should be obligated to vocally support every single policy of the government, in every single conceivable area, versus their right to contribute to the public discourse in debates on various issues. By contrast, McChrystal made a laundry list of personal attacks on his superiors, because of private disagreements about a settled policy debate, on an issue that is at the very heart of the mission he's supposed to be executing on behalf of the civilian command structure.

    Aside from that, though, lets analyze what was actually said. Was their any conceivable point to making fun of Biden with "Did you say 'Bite me?'" Does that contribute anything to an intelligent discussion at all? Help us understand the war or his frustrations any better? It's just a juvenile taunt. Even if we wanted to take it seriously, it's devoid of any information except "I don't like this person." There are no cogent policy points here, just a long stream of insults: wimp, clown, wounded animal, etc. Considering the logic behind them is just as trouble. Let's be generous, and assume as you do that his point is "everyone is more interested in politics than doing what's right." Really? The entire foreign policy appartus, except, conveniently, people who agree with him, are insincere and conniving? It's impossible for someone to have a principled but differing view about the best course to take in Afghanistan and the costs of continued engagement there? Everyone else has their vision deeply flawed by their personal maladjustments, save he, the clear-eyed, bold, prophetic leader that understands everything in perfect and unbiased fashion? That's what you want us to take seriously? Dress it up as you like, but it's inescapably a bunch of petulant ad hominem attacks from someone who seems small-minded in the extreme.

     
  12. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Sort of. My point was more along the lines of recognizing that an administration is going to lack transparency, but still accepting that fact, or at least not wanting to force transparency above all else, or into areas where it doesn't make sense. (like Afghanistan/an active conflict) For you to say "it's not a place for a general to say any of that" is a huge change in your mindset.

    A cynic would suggest that someone like Seymour Hersh should be frothing at the mouth to write his latest "expose book" filled with inner monologue and anonymous citations and recollections which are all focused on McCrystal's accounts on the state of Afghanistan from Jan 2010 and forward, but I think it's fair to say that everyone recognizes how pointless and silted such expose books are.
     
  13. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    EDIT 2: Oh, never mind. Apparently, that response was intended for KW.

    EDIT: Also, because I didn't before, I should mention your claim about McChrystal somehow being justified because of concerns about the deadline is wrong. Just two days ago, Rahm Emmanuel was making the rounds on the Sunday shows to explain how the July 11th date was conditional, and was by no means set in stone. Likewise, much of the difficulty the White House has had in the current round of war funding, and in the most recent Congressional hearings about it, has been pressure from the liberals to make the withdrawal date certain and unconditional--because, you know, it's not. And that's what's really one of the most bizarre things here. Obama and company are under pretty withering fire for continuing to back McChrystal. To which he responds with all sorts of withering insults because, over half a year ago, they dared entertain the notion of perhaps not agreeing with him.

     
  14. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Huh? My reply was made in response to KW's questions. It just happened to fall after your post.

    EDIT for the EDIT: And in your response to your edit, I don't approve of McChrystal's comments, and he should have waited until he became a private citizen if or when he retires. I simply accept that it's a practice that was condoned in the recent past as valid criticism. Why do you think that Rolling Stones even thought they could approach McCrystal, and then approve a "candid review and profile?" This article wasn't just created out of thin air. I think people are finally realizing what the double edged sword represents.

    Changing standards either allows military leaders the candor to criticize civilian leaders or it doesn't. Either transparency is important or its not. I suppose it's acceptable to realize that there's a learning curve here, so if people now think the media went too far in recent practice, it can be pulled back. But then there shouldn't be surprise at where the line is.

    The actual feature "The Runaway General" is 6 pages long, and it is more than simply badmouthing the President. The joke about Biden was related to how shortsighted Biden's terrorism policy was. Most of the other quips were related to how the administration kept telling him to shut up because he was making them look bad by telling what the truth was.

    Like it or hate it, such "truth or dare" journalism is now standard practice. McChrystal can be reassigned by the President so he'll have to accept the consequences for his actions, but I don't think it's fair that anyone should be shocked or particularly upset at such candor in an interview.
     
  15. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Mr44

    Is 99% of the reason that you post here* to try and prove that KW defends Obama on matters that he would?ve attacked Bush? ;)

    I think KW would admit that he has a liberal bias. That doesn?t make him right or wrong of course, but one can certainly understand if he?s annoyed.

    Why do you think that Rolling Stones even thought they could approach McCrystal, and then approve a "candid review and profile?" This article wasn't just created out of thin air. I think people are finally realizing what the double edged sword represents...Like it or hate it, such "truth or dare" journalism is now standard practice. McChrystal can be reassigned by the President so he'll have to accept the consequences for his actions, but I don't think it's fair that anyone should be shocked or particularly upset at such candor in an interview.

    Here?s a novel thought...he (and his team) should?ve known all this, and most importandly, didn?t have to do the interview in the first place.

    I think a better compare-contrast would be General Douglas MacArthur:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur

    Personally, I agree with my man J-Rod that McChrystal should be let go, especially since it?s not the first time he?s been insubordinate. He reportedly has offered his resignation, which is probably the best way to handle it:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/mcchrystal-offers-resignation-after-disparaging-remarks-on-afghanistan-war.html

    *The other 1% would be your extreme bias against the HK 416
     
  16. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Again, though, how was it "condoned in the past?" You just asserted that the Abizaid incident is a precedent, without even bothering to present any reasoning as to why. Given the significant differences between what happened then and now, you at least owe some elaboration on that point. Further, while Rolling Stone clearly intended to have an in-depth profile of McChrystal, it's silly of you to assume that they took on the job expecting this sort of material. In the first place, Rolling Stone editors have publicly related their surprise when the first notes from the reporter began to reach them. In the second, in-depth profiles of major public figures are a fairly routine event, and it's rare in the extreme that they contain anything of this sort. Frankly, there've even been other major interviews and profiles of McChrystal himself that weren't of this character. It seems rather grasping of you to suggest that Rolling Stone made the proposal for the article with everyone having in mind that McChrystal would trash the greater part of the foreign policy establishment.

    It's further not clear how or why you frame this as an issue of "transparency." But I think I've thrown enough questions about your position into one post.
     
  17. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    A must read:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2257818
     
  18. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Bush fired dozens of military men for much smaller criticisms of policy.

    Him and his staff saying our allies are "******* gay", calling the National Security Advisor a "clown," making fun of the Vice President, saying the White House is full of wimps, etc. are MUCH WORSE. It's creating a culture of disrespect for civilian authority. Policy isn't even the focus here, it's unprovoked namecalling. And McChrystal's comments are greatly demoralizing our troops. It wasn't criticism, it was NAMECALLING.

    "Nowhere in the article is McChrystal or any of his aides quoted as disagreeing with Obama's policy on Afghanistan."

    Comparisons to General MacArthur, who Truman fired because he wanted to nuke China, are fairly being made. In the United States, the CIVILIANS are the ultimate boss of the military.

    Also, this is not the first time for McChrystal. He's been warned about this before, and people who have known him for years say he has always been like this. He also helped cover up Pat Tillman's death.

    What's really incredible is that he knew he was on record, knew there was a journalist there. From Rolling Stone, a magazine that was started during the backlash against the Vietnam War. What was McChrystal thinking????

    And I don't see why you think just because McChrystal didn't have a good personal relationship with President Obama is relevant, or somehow justifies, what he is saying.

    Do you really think Obama and his administation aren't concerned with actually getting things done in Afghanistan?


    McChrystal isn't doing that well in Afghanistan, he doesn't believe in his mission, and he doesn't respect the government he's working for.
     
  19. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Ghost, I think if you went back and re-read your post, you'd probably shock yourself. Really, McChrystal's comments are demoralizing to the troops? He doesn't respect the government he's working for? Suddenly Rolling Stone is the magazine that started the backlash against Vietnam so he should have avoided it? Throw in a couple of "you're unamerican if you're not with us" calls and you'd be right at home on the Rush Limbaugh show. Such reactions shouldn't be dependent on who is personally sitting in the White House. Which is my point. I'm quite sure that all of your questions have been brought up before only framed with a different focus.
     
  20. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    A sitting general never criticized the Bush administration this way.

    And yes, they definitely do demoralize troops.

    And yes, it sure does seem like he doesn't respect the government he's working for.

    (I never said Rolling Stone started the Vietnam backlash, or that he should have avoided it. I meant that he probably should have known to be more careful with a reporter in the room. It almost seems like McChrystal WANTED this backlash against himself.)

    McChrystal wasn't saying he wasn't with Obama, or even that he disagreed with policy, it just showed that he tolerated and apparently helped create an atmosphere of disrespect and insubordination.

    It's not dependent on who is in the White House. If Petraeus had said or allowed his staff to say things like this about the Bush administration that he is working for, 6 months into the Iraqi surge, Republicans and Democrats would be having basically the same reactions.

    This is about the military respecting the civilian government of the United States, as well as its own allies in the war.

    Why are you trying to re-frame this into a debate about Bush and the Democrats? And why are you so convinced I'm an extremely partisan, liberal, hypocritical Democrat?
     
  21. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Because, in this case, you are. When it came to Iraq, Democrats were pointing to Shinseki as a means to attack Bush and Rumsfeld over that war. Shinsei, I might add, is now Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, so he gets a nice six-figure income in addition to his retirement pay, which for a four-star general, is considerable.
     
  22. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But Ghost, it was the strength of your reaction that I questioned. It's also why I made the intentionally glib Limbaugh comparison. Do you honestly think that someone who has served over 30 years in the military suddenly doesn't respect the county he works for simply because he gave a raw interview against the administration? Basically, you're labeling someone as unpatriotic because they questioned the President. Where have I seen that debate before?

    This is why I originally questioned KW's initial statement as well, because he indicated that "no military official should say these things ever." Except for at least 5 years now, he's pretty much held the exact opposite opinion. It would be great if an atmosphere of civility was fostered for such discourse. For years now- but I'd say it really took off with the 24hrs news channels as well as the capability to instantly blog one's thoughts to millions- the media has been moving in an "in your face direction." The justification has been that the transparency is worth it. If for example, Bush was blind to the failings of an Iraqi strategy, he should be called on it. But that's not what is happening now. Is it possible to pull back from an standard once it's been established?

    Here's RealClearPolitic's take on the issue:

    RCP HERE

    During the George W. Bush presidency, the media were fixated with the need for military brass to be able to challenge the president. In the age of Obama, however, what once was hailed as principled dissent has morphed into intolerable insubordination.

    Witness the calls for Gen. Stanley McChrystal to resign from his NATO command in Afghanistan. CNN's anchors are in a tizzy that the brass "mocked" the administration. When I read the Rolling Stone piece that spawned the McChrystal debate, I kept waiting for a quote so inflammatory that it essentially forced President Obama to call the general away from Afghanistan and back to Washington so that he can (a) be dressed down, (b) be forced to issue a more abject apology, (c) resign or be fired -- or (d) all of the above. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., called for McChrystal to resign, saying, "If he actually said half of what is being reported, he shouldn't be in the position he is in." Actually, McChrystal did not say half of what was reported...

    In short, this brouhaha is not on the level of Gen. Douglas MacArthur threatening China with war and otherwise deliberately working to undermine the orders of President Truman. This dispute was not born in a calculated attempt to challenge civilian authority over military command. Instead, it was a full-color gaffe born in the cocky badinage of men behaving like boys and trying to out-quip one another in the front of "the boss." Of course, excessive verbal preening is not a smart idea in front of a freelance reporter. The story served only to confirm reports of in-house fighting between McChrystal and Holbrooke, and with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. In failing to check his subordinates' derisive talk, McChrystal allowed for a situation that now demands very public apologies. Worse, it could alter the course of Operation Enduring Freedom, as the general put it, "knee-deep in the decisive year."

    A year into the Obama surge and a year before the reputed July 2011 withdrawal deadline, there are some 94,000 U.S. personnel serving in Afghanistan. Their interests must come first. They deserve the best military commander available. Really, who cares if one of McChrystal's aides called Jones a "clown"? What happens in Afghanistan is crucial. Sticks and stones are not.


    (The actual op-ed is longer)
     
  23. kingthlayer

    kingthlayer Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Of course they should challenge the President, 44. There needs to be debate in policy. But is mocking a bunch of officials in the administration, in Rolling Stone of all places, really comparable to "challenging" the President?

    Also, what is the "challenge" here? There isn't really much difference policy-wise between McChrystal and Obama. How is calling Biden "Bite me", and calling our allies "f*ing gay" a substantive challenge as opposed to just being completely out of line?

    I have been a supporter of McChrystal in the past. If you rummage through my old posts, I supported his position on the Afghan War and expected Obama to make good on his promise to prioritize the war and turn it around. But I find it pretty hard to support him on this one. It shows a lack of good judgement and class. If he stays, it will only be because of his good relations with Karzai and to preserve the morale of his troops.

     
  24. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    JS

    Because, in this case, you are. When it came to Iraq, Democrats were pointing to Shinseki as a means to attack Bush and Rumsfeld over that war. Shinsei, I might add, is now Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, so he gets a nice six-figure income in addition to his retirement pay, which for a four-star general, is considerable.

    IIRC the distinct difference was that Shinseki made his statements during testimony in front of the Armed Services committee.

    And since no one seemed to have read the article I linked :mad:, here are some highlights:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2257818

    Three points need to be made here.

    First, this is not MacArthur vs. Truman. (President Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, at the time the wildly popular U.S. commander in Korea, for defying his orders to refrain from attacking China.) It's not even Fallon vs. Bush. (President George W. Bush fired Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, for publicly advocating a speedier pullout from Iraq than Bush had already ordered.)

    ...Obama clearly has to reassert his authority and make clear that McChrystal?and his staff?understand who's the real boss. McChrystal has long been a loose cannon. He said in a speech last year in London, while the internal debate over Afghan policy was still going on, that the strategy advocated by Vice President Joe Biden would lead to defeat. Earlier, he took part in falsifying the records on Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan, making it seem to have been caused by Taliban insurgents instead of friendly fire.

    The key question?and it's one that nobody outside the Oval Office can answer?is whether President Obama feels that he can still trust McChrystal. When President Bill Clinton fired Les Aspin as his first secretary of defense, a case could have been made that Aspin was the fall guy for a misjudgment made by the entire military command, in that case about the troop deployments in Somalia. But it didn't matter; if Clinton no longer trusted him, for whatever reason, Aspin had to go. The same is true here. If Obama is simply fed up with McChrystal, and especially if Gates (McChrystal's patron and Obama's most trusted Cabinet officer) agrees with the assessment, then the general has to go.

    There are other risks, though. If McChrystal is pushed out, and if the war continues to go badly, many will blame Obama for this decision; they'll say his ego got in the way of the war effort. One can imagine McChrystal's pals, or the man himself, encouraging what-if games from the sidelines.

    If, on the other hand, McChrystal is kept on, Obama may well wind up in firmer control than before. McChrystal is no MacArthur; a few hours of sweating, a stern lecture, and a new series of commands may be all it takes to snap him to. He'll also have to clean house of all but the most essential toadies in his midst; he fired his press secretary, who let the Rolling Stone reporter in the door, but that's the flimsiest of gestures.

    Then there's another factor: McChrystal created the war strategy; it's his in much the same way that the surge in Iraq belonged to Gen. David Petraeus. Obama would have to calculate whether the strategy could continue in the absence of McChrystal. This isn't an abstract question: McChrystal is highly respected in the field; he's also one of the few Americans in Afghanistan with whom President Karzai feels comfortable. These are no small considerations amid a war where morale?both inside the Afghan government and among U.S. troops?is critical and in jeopardy.

    Nobody, of course, is indispensable. Petraeus could step down from his regional post as head of U.S. Central Command to run the Afghanistan war more directly. Gen. James Mattis, another strategically minded officer who's been head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, was recently passed over to be the next Marine commandant and thus is headed for retirement?unless he takes over Afghanistan instead...


    And regarding Bush's firing of Admiral Fallon:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2186456/

    It's a shame that Adm. William "Fox" Fallon h
     
  25. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004