Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gen. Pace: U.S. Would Win War In N. Korea  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

In an October 14 article originating in the Los Angeles Times, America's top military officer expressed confidence in a U.S. victory if it came to war with North Korea.

With about two million soldiers available, the U.S. military would be able to handle a war in North Korea as it maintained a troop presence of approximately 200,000 in Iraq and Afghanstan, according to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Although the U.S. would prevail, the war could be messy, the General said, because precision weapons were in high demand among U.S. forces in the Middle East and larger numbers of unguided bombs and missiles would be used in a North Korean conflict than would be preferred. Moreover, the U.S. would rely heavily on the assets of the Air Force and Navy, he said.

Despite substantial military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. maintains a large inventory of military equipment and conventional and nuclear ordnance, deployable on short notice from bases around the world and from aircraft carriers, other surface vessels, and submarines.

Four out of twelve U.S. aircraft carriers are currently deployed and about 45% of the U.S. active fleet of 281 major combat vessels is either underway, on patrol, or away from home port. The U.S. Navy maintains twenty-five large amphibious assault ships, each the size of a World War II aircraft carrier, eighteen of which are currently away from home. The U.S. Air Force maintains more than a hundred long-range bombers in readiness, including B-52's, B-1B's, and B-2's.

In November, 2004, a report allegedly circulated that the U.S. was prepared to drop up to 30 nuclear bombs from F-15E strike aircraft on targets in North Korea if Seoul, South Korea, were attacked.

For the Los Angeles Times article mentioned above, please see its publication in the following:

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NAS...id=1020420665036&col=1112101662670

Additional sources consulted:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy.asp?id=146

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...cle&code=STA20041108&articleId=127

[Edited 2006-10-15 09:58:07]

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2803 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Geographically North Korea has no hope of winning a battle. Currently, all of its surrounding countries (China, South Korea, Japan ect) are all on the US's side if the N. Korea crisis has to come down to a war. And the threat of a nuclear explosion is very unlikely (except for maybe S. Korea) as the nuclear bomb that N. Korea apparently has is immobile, and it cannot be fired like a missile to other countries. If N. Korea does somehow go to war, it's only a matter of time before they get defeated.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

There's no doubt that North Korea would lose a war, but the question in my mind is how much havoc they'd be able to wreak before that happened.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

The possibility of war in North Korea is a horrific one. There could be hundreds of thousands of military and civilian casualties on both sides of the border and the possibility of an initially successful invasion of South Korea and its capital city, Seoul.

I do not believe that the war would "go nuclear" from the standpoint of the United States, because the risks would be far too great, and this may be irrespective of whether North Korea initiates the use of one or more of their nuclear weapons, which is somewhat doubtful given their current state of development, but not impossible. China and Russia would immediately condemn the use of any nuclear weapons and their own militaries would go on the alert, heightening the risk of miscalculation. As it stands, the two countries currently oppose any military sanctions against North Korea, pursuant to the UN Resolution requiring North Korea to immediately give up its nuclear weapons just passed by a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council. And the Resolution specifically states that no such military sanctions will be used, although the U.S. Ambassador has stated that further measures will be considered if North Korea refuses to comply with UN Security Council demands. It would appear that Europe, also, would refuse to support the use of nuclear option and would call for its immediate cessation. There might even be calls on the left for some European countries to pull out of NATO. I think, therefore, that the U.S. would refrain from the use of any nuclear weapons even in a North Korean conflict unless as a last resort.

From what I've gathered, any initially successful invasion of the South would occur if the North overruns the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), as it appears possible for it to do. This could be their the North's response to any air attack against any of their facilities. Such an invasion would involve potentially thousands of U.S. and South Korean casualties over the course of the first four or five days.

The "best case scenario" on any military scale would be so-called "surgical strikes" on a wide range of North Korea nuclear, missile, and other facilities -- including the government complex and heavily reinforced leadership bunkers in and around Pyongyang in the hopes of a "decapitating attack", combined with an intensive defense of the DMZ including possible barrage of entrenched Northern positions there. Some experts seem to believe, however, that North Korea would immediately fire its missiles at Seoul at the first hint of such an attack, causing great havoc of its own. Shelters for such missiles are heavily fortified and well-hidden.

It would be, as Gen. Pace has said, messy.

[Edited 2006-10-15 10:28:33]

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
America's top military officer expressed confidence in a U.S. victory if it came to war with North Korea.

I don't dispute Gen. Pace's position.

My question is: At what cost? To any side of the conflict. The real losers . . . the North Korean populace.


User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2803 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

N. Koreas population is already suffering greatly currently under Kim...

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
My question is: At what cost? To any side of the conflict. The real losers . . . the North Korean populace.

I think both sides of the border could very well lose. It might only be a question of how much.

Besides the obvious human cost, the South Korean economy could lose twenty to thirty percent of its productivity within weeks, and it would not fully recover for years. There could be a currency crisis in the area, as well, as investors lose confidence in Northeast Asia. And there would the much-anticipated flood of refugees from North Korea to China.

The entire region could be set back by five to ten years.

From a purely selfish standpoint, we might find ourselves saying good-bye to good times for the aerospace industry, as economic retrenchment could cause that region's airlines to scale back their plans.

[Edited 2006-10-15 10:23:51]

User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2803 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

South Korea already has an econimic crisis, and it would be a shame to see Korean Air go down (they were recently voted #1, if Im correct?)

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Quoting Elite (Reply 7):
South Korea already has an econimic crisis, and it would be a shame to see Korean Air go down (they were recently voted #1, if Im correct?)

I don't think that South Korea is doing that badly right now; last time I looked, their economy was within ten percent or so of the size of Russia's. But I think that we can anticipate a significant disruption in international commerce in that area if war comes. It would be tragic in every sense of the word.


User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2803 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1767 times:

That is true, but it would be really tragic if the entire world recieves more threats from N. Korea because by then they might've built even more powerful nuclear weapons and now has the ability to fire them at surrounding countries, or possibly the US.

User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1764 times:

Well based on what I've seen from other members on this site... General Pace clearly has NO idea about our military capabilities in the North because there is no way possible all of the stuff the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says is there is actually there. He also CLEARLY SAYS that we could whoop them no problem in only a matter of days and there would be virtually no loss on innocent life. (extreme sarcasm here)

*this is a rant towards some members on this site who ripped into me (thinking they know all there is to know)when I made virtually the EXACT same comments as the General and accused me of being uninformed, a warmonger, having no idea about our military capability in the region, etc...

N Korea Conducted A Nuclear Test? (by Dtwclipper Oct 9 2006 in Non Aviation)#1
please note my initial comment in reply #20, followed my comments saying how uninformed and stupid my comment was in replies #36, 38, 59(me), 143, 149, 152(me), 154, 162. So in conclusion, the ONLY thing I said in that other thread is that we would win. And apparently General Pace agrees with me but some of the other "informed" members on the site would disagree.

(hopefully this doesn't get deleted because it does have to do with the thread itself and also a pretty serious problem with how some of the more "respected" members on this site treat those who dont agree with them)



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting Elite (Reply 9):
That is true, but it would be really tragic if the entire world recieves more threats from N. Korea because by then they might've built even more powerful nuclear weapons and now has the ability to fire them at surrounding countries, or possibly the US.

Yes, and so we face the horns of a dilemma.

The National Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMD) is only a partial solution, because it isn't clear that it works sufficiently reliably. And while we're developing other measures, such as the Airborne Laser program (ABL), which is intended to allow an aircraft to shoot down a ballistic missile during its boost stage, the ABL hasn't been tested even once.

This is why the Bush Administration is trying so hard to get sanctions to work. The military solutions aren't very attractive, but neither is allowing the North Korean dictator to get his hands on any more nuclear technology. There are no obvious solutions, but only ways and means to pursue what is possible and least costly, at least for now.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 10):
*this is a rant towards some members on this site who ripped into me (thinking they know all there is to know)when I made virtually the EXACT same comments as the General and accused me of being uninformed, a warmonger, having no idea about our military capability in the region, etc...

Well, I hope that we can keep this discussion civil, regardless of what others may have done elsewhere. We're doing okay, so far. Welcome to this thread.


User currently offlineVHVXB From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Quoting Elite (Reply 7):
South Korea already has an econimic crisis

you can also add Japan in that group as well


User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2803 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 11):
Airborne Laser program (ABL)

Yeah, I read that in a TIME magazine, or somewhere. They were nicknaming it "Star-Wars-like defense".


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

Ok Aerospace Fan, instead of quoting the article you ramble on about we have this available to us and that available to us like you have a clue. As I have previously demonstrated you don't.

Your Numbers and presumptions are based on god knows what and apparently don't take into consideration that we currently have troops/assets deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan (just to name a couple of obvious ones).

Now if you meant your initial post to be a quote I'll apologize and merely ask you for a source. If you are just basing it off whatever  redflag  CNN/FOX spoon fed you I'm sorry you choose to be that sheepish.


That being said an engagement with North Korea is a very complicated issue at this time. Do I think we would win? Almost certainly; this would be a very supportable war regardless of the current administrations bunglings. But several things need to occur and it will take at least the invasion of S. Korea before we could get Russian and Chinese permission to attack. Until that happens I suggest we let Donald Rumsfield (as stupid as he apparently is) worry about what's where and how to get it deployed in case that happens.


User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Well, I hope that we can keep this discussion civil, regardless of what others may have done elsewhere. We're doing okay, so far. Welcome to this thread.

Indeed. And it's definitely nice of the General to give the public some numbers to prove that our force isn't as weak as many would like to think.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1745 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 15):
I suggest we let Donald Rumsfield (as stupid as he apparently is) worry about what's where and how to get it deployed in case that happens.

Oh, Hell No . . . he'd send a few Stryker Brigades and do it on the cheap . . . Geezus Ted T . . . if we HAVE to go up against North Korea, being left with no choice at all, I pray it happens after Dumsfeld is long gone . . .


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

Quoting Elite (Reply 14):
Yeah, I read that in a TIME magazine, or somewhere. They were nicknaming it "Star-Wars-like defense".

The ground-based section of the BMD consists of a number of highly advanced interceptor rockets located on two military bases -- one each in Alaska and California. The goal of these interceptors is to intercept long-range ballistic missiles while they are in their flight stage outside the atmosphere. Previous tests of these interceptors have yielded mixed results. However, the last test was deemed a success.^1 This component may be the best-known feature of U.S. missile defense, but there are also other components, including segments using advanced Patriot missiles and ship-board Aegis surface-to-air missiles. A worldwide suite of sensors, including those based on military satellites, is used to detect and track missile threats.

As of now, the ABL is not nearly operational and it hasn't even been tested yet. (There is a recent thread about an aspect of it in the Military Aviation & Space Forum of this site.)

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency coordinates the evolving capabilities of the United States to defend itself and its allies against ballistic missile threats.

Their official Website is at:

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

For an unofficial but still comprehensive source of information, please see:

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/

There are also other official U.S. Government Websites that you can easily find for yourself.

_______________________________

1. See, e.g., Cloud, David S., "Missile Defense Intercepts Rocket in Test", The New York Times, article dated September 2, 2006, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/wa...465&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Edit of 2006-10-15 11:09:22: Corrected designation of bases for BMD, courtesy of ANCFlyer.]

[Edited 2006-10-15 11:11:02]

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
I pray it happens after Dumsfeld is long gone . . .

If I was a praying man I would too. Unfortuately I'm not optimistic we have that long.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1734 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have no doubt the US would win a war against North Korea.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
I don't dispute Gen. Pace's position.

My question is: At what cost?

Exactly! But, having created huge clusterfucks in Afghanistan and Iraq, why not go for three in a row?

Quoting Elite (Reply 5):
N. Koreas population is already suffering greatly currently under Kim...

So were the folks living in Iraq under Sadam. Now they might struggle to decide if they were better of with him or without him.

Quoting Elite (Reply 7):
South Korea already has an econimic crisis, and it would be a shame to see Korean Air go down (they were recently voted #1, if Im correct?)

Because the loss of those smart blue planes would be a tragic consequence of a bloody war that could easily claim the lives of hundreds of thousands. scratchchin 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 18):
two Air Force bases -- one each in Alaska

Ft. Greely, Alaska is an Army Installation - thank you.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 21):
Ft. Greely, Alaska is an Army Installation - thank you.

Sorry about that. You're right, of course.

Changed reference accordingly, with acknowledgment.

[Edited 2006-10-15 11:11:28]

User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

This isn't the 1950's. I have no doubts we could put a footprint where DPRK used to be. The B-1's and B-2's out of Guam could get there pretty quickly and litter the skies with ALCM's and then there's the Navy, but in this case you have to ask "at what cost".

[Edited 2006-10-15 11:24:23]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Further thoughts: There is one rather peculiar "joker" in the deck, so to speak, that one might consider: The possibility that North Korea may, indeed, have one or more missiles capable of reaching the United States that, moreover, could be equipped with nuclear warheads. So far, both of the major undertakings violative of international requirements that North Korea had declared it would conduct -- that it will fire its longest-range ballistic missiles (accomplished on July 4, 2006), and that it will conduct a nuclear test (evidently accomplished last week) -- have occurred, although there is doubt as to the nature of the latter or at least whether it was entirely successful. North Korea has just said that it may consider the acts of the United States to be an act of war that would cause it to send a nuclear-tipped missile toward it. While most experts seem to doubt that North Korea has developed a nuclear warhead light enough to allow this threat to be carried out, or even that it has a missile capable of reaching any part of the United States, there are few certainties in this regard and thus we would be well-advised to keep our ballistic missile defenses on appropriate alert accordingly.

If the U.S. itself should be successfully attacked by such means, all bets are off and there would be calls for the complete annihilation of all North Korean faciilities by all means necessary for their elimination, regardless of collateral cost. Whether such calls would be heeded is to me, presently, unclear. But the odds are that we will not face this question. At least, one hopes so.

[Edited 2006-10-15 11:28:33]

25 Elite : If the N. Koreans do fire a nuclear warhead, or just a normal missile, at the US, then they clearly have intentions of war and at that time the entire
26 AerospaceFan : I think you'd be right, and indeed, virtually the entire world is against them already. But still there would be those who would counsel against the
27 MCIGuy : Even if you hit a nuclear reactor with conventional weapons you're going to get subtantial fallout that would drift directly over Japan. Once a reacto
28 AerospaceFan : That may be true, but would it be the same as the phenomena of radiation burns, for example, that a nuclear weapon would cause? I think that there wo
29 Post contains images Speedbird747BA : (sarcasm) Oh my goodness......no way! Come on people, this is China and Russia, they condemn pretty much everything the US does when they have enough
30 RichardPrice : Well, if a 'Win' constitutes the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, both wars which the US (and UK) 'won', theres no doubt that the war is 'w
31 Speedbird747BA : Thats different, we knew those would be unconventioanl wars when we went in, and after 9/11 the pres did tell us we were in it for the long haul, a w
32 Post contains images Skidmarks : Well, for all the power available to the US and her allies, they failed once to sort out North Korea and, despite any percieved optimism about Russia
33 RichardPrice : Why? What would be different? In both cases you were fighting against a second rate military on its own turf and only later it turned into a guerilla
34 Post contains links AerospaceFan : What would be the source of agitation, however? And who would supply weaponry, supplies, and money? The Middle East has a number of sources for each
35 Speedbird747BA : No, we failed to sort out NK, China, both with support from Russia. Cheers, Kyle
36 Baroque : Would someone remind me what happened the last time we had a Korean war. I seem to remember remarkable defeats followed by remarkable victories follow
37 AerospaceFan : One difference is that Hamas put their missiles in densely populated areas. I don't think that that's the same thing in North Korea. For one thing, i
38 Baroque : Have check on how long that border is and assume a belt about 20 to 40 km deep. That is a lot of bombing, and you have about 5 minutes to get it done
39 MCIGuy : That's because in 1981, the Osirak reactor hadn't been fueled with Plutonium yet. In fact, the IDFAF had to execute the mission pretty quickly becaus
40 AerospaceFan : I don't doubt it at all. It would be a horrible war, as I said. But still, I think that it would be a different war from Vietnam, because the South w
41 Greasespot : Are you for real...he country is possibly destroyed and your worried about an airline......Wow now that is shallow... GS
42 Speedbird747BA : Yes it was the French....the French also (against the will of much of the worl sold them the reactor!! Cheers, Kyle
43 Post contains images Halls120 : Gen Pace is the Chairman of the JCS. He has to say we would win. Yes, we would win. Eventually. But as one of the ones who you are now whining about
44 Post contains images ANCFlyer : If that happened, North Korea would cease to exist in its current state . . . in short order. Might I add, once again, if this country had pursued St
45 Allstarflyer : If I'm not mistaken, a certain commander was withheld from advancing into China at the order of his Commander-in-Chief. -R
46 AerospaceFan : "Old soldiers never die...." There's never been anyone quite like "Mac", as his peers called him. Except maybe Patton.
47 Post contains images Skidmarks : Indeed they did. And do you think for one minute the Chinese WANT a large American led army right on their doorstep? For all their condemnation of th
48 Baroque : Indeed he was, but too late, the Chinese had committed to the N Korean side. His dismissal was pretty dramatic too, so I am still wondering about the
49 ANCFlyer : Nope, which is why it's up to them to kick this Krazy Kim in the ass and tell him to knock it off . . . and I think they will, in their own way, in t
50 Mir : And a war with China is something that we absolutely don't want. Seems to me that China is now in a pretty bad position - North Korea is now a nuclea
51 Halls120 : I should have posted a few more sarcasm smileys, I suppose. The only foolproof strategy I know of for eliminating North Korea's offensive strategy wi
52 ANCFlyer : And we won't have . . . Exactly as Searpqx said above. North Korea shortsheeted them, in a big way, and I'm sure China isn't happy, but they'll deal
53 Elite : China was trying to be friendly with N. Korea, but even after China's warnings N. Korea went ahead with testing... China is now sort of the in the mid
54 Baroque : Sorry, I will happily take 8 demerits for not realising it was all a leg pull, bit of a relief really. I noticed the wink, but then the next bit seem
55 MD11Engineer : Just have a look at history: For hundreds of years Korea was depending on China. Korea's emperors had to swear fealty to the Chinese emperor and had
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Who Would Win In A Fight.... posted Sat Feb 19 2005 19:43:11 by Sv7887
Saints Win Big In Superdome Opener posted Tue Sep 26 2006 06:19:31 by MSYtristar
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
Morales Fails To Win Majority In Assembly posted Tue Jul 4 2006 03:17:53 by Derico
Hypothetical Wars: Who Would Win? posted Tue May 23 2006 23:22:08 by Confuscius
War In Iraq, The Most Foolish War Since 2000 Years posted Wed Nov 30 2005 09:07:17 by Oldeuropean
Asian Allies Doubt US Could Win A War With China posted Thu Nov 24 2005 08:45:26 by Jetjack74
A Marine's Report On The War In Iraq posted Thu Nov 17 2005 04:47:22 by PROSA
Was War In Iraq Madeup By Bush? Good Vid posted Wed Nov 16 2005 06:25:33 by MidnightMike
Who Would You Be In An Adult Movie With? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 06:14:09 by AAFLT1871