Saturday, July 09, 2005

OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT Overview

This is the original Overview from July, 2005.

This remains on the blog as a historical document of Our Beginnings.

Operation Yellow Elephant has evolved since then based on further refinements of our mission balanced with our national interest. In many cases, comments and other feedback from Real Americans have prompted these clarifications.

We encourage all concerned to look at OYE 101 etc. on the upper right-hand corner of the blog for current, up-to-date information about Operation Yellow Elephant.

Thank you.


One of the General's readers pointed out that there isn't a good, one stop place to learn everything you need to know about OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT. Hopefully, this post will serve that purpose. Check back often for updates.

The objective of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is to recruit College Republicans and Young Republicans to serve as infantry. They demanded this war and now viciously support it. It's only right that they also experience it.

The 56th College Republican National Convention (June 24-26, 2005) and the Young Republican National Convention (July 6-10, 2005; directions) are the settings for most of the ops.

The General encourages his readers to take the initiative to create materials and to plan and conduct special operations. Please let him know what you've done and he'll try to post it.

Regular readers know that the General is a proud heterosexual, Christian conservative. He is not trying to embarrass the College Republicans. Rather, he believes that by encouraging them to enlist, he is pushing them to be more vocal about the good work their doing to make our homeland safe--things like holding affirmative action bakesales, holding immigrant hunts, almost single-handedly funding Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Michelle Malkin, relieving the elderly of the burden of having money, and punching out Joan Jett.

Posts introducing OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT

The first post
- The General asks Rep. Mike Pence to ask the CR's to enlist when he speaks at their convention.

The rationale behind OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT

OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT Briefing

Materials

OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT stickers, buttons, tees, etc.

More materials
-- A resolution to pass out at the CR convention, a poster that rates a 10 on the manly scale of absolute gender, and a web ad.

"Sign Up or Shut Up" stickers (free download), buttons, tees, etc.

OYE Bingo cards (free download), buttons, tees, etc.

Special Ops

Special Op "First Strike" - Ask the College Republican leadership to pass a resolution disbanding their organization and calling for its membership to enlist.

Special Op "Video Ninja" - Strike Teams will videotape encounters with CRs near their convention.

Mark's op - Mark sends a number of emails to the College Republican National Committee asking them to put links to recruiters on their site. They remain silent.

Special Op "Volunteer" - Taskforce Burnplant contacts CR organizations across the country and asks their members to enlist. This results in a lengthy Exchange with the Gonzaga College CRs.

Special Op "Adbusters" - Col. Crooks and Liars attempted to assist our nation's military recruiting efforts by placing a full page ad in the Official Program of the Young Republican National Convention. Unfortunately, the Young Republican leadership felt that such an appeal would, as the kids say, "put a harsh on their buzz.

Phase II - Karl Olson sprang for recruiting booths at the Young Republican National Convention, and the General proposes that people hold Bake Sales for Body Armor at their community festivals.

Blue Team Special Op "Fax-a-Fascist"

Red Team Special Op "Lucky Strike"

Red Team Special Op "Tikrit Taxi"

OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT Bingo -- Play America's favorite game using the excuses made by College Republicans for avoiding the war.

Special Op: "Army of Jeff" -- Armed with large jars of vasoline, an army of Gannons descend upon the Young Republican National Convention to ply their trade.

Other

Letter to Nathan Taylor, Chair, Young Republicans - I congratulate Mr. Taylor for his organizations tremendous sacrifice. They're sending Chapstick to our troops. I also comment on Taylor's charge that we are going to disrespect veterans by infiltrating the Young Republican convention.

I uncover a sinister plot to destroy our military effectiveness.

35 Comments:

At 09 July, 2005 11:21, Blogger Sue123 said...

Frist!

 
At 10 July, 2005 12:33, Anonymous Michael said...

The assertion that all who approve of the war (in Iraq I assume) must be willing and able to join up to fight is absurd.

Following that faulty logic we would have never fought for independence from England, or joined WW2 to save Europe. Since only a small majority wanted to be liberated from Europe, and an even smaller number of people wanted to join in WW2.

It is the job of the supporters to convice the cowards, naysayers, and timid to join the cause-- therefore it is right and just that many will support but not pick up a gun and fight.

My only question to the author of this site is... since I have served in the Military (War on terror) does my opinion on being 'prowar' now become valid? Which by the way, if you survey those in the military (or survey most conservatives and moderatesin or out of the military) you will see that most support the "war". The only people who are anti-war are mega-liberals, pacifists, socialists, pro-totalitarians, anti-us-on-everything etc...basically your typical ex-drug using hippies on college campuses, mixed with a tinge of anti-war wolf in sheeps clothing pseudo-conservative half-liberal people such as the author of this site.. these people are the anti-war crowd... topped with a few liberal politico/hollywood superficials to get the point out on libTV such as CNN, Al-Reuters, and AP (all propaganda/associated press).

Then you have your brainwashed conspiracy theoried out websites such as this, who disregard all FACTS; whose only goal is to sarcasticly point out that most young republicans at college campuses don't want to put on a uniform and fight, but want to support the country doing "something" against an enemy that has called the US " the great satan " and has issued a "fatwah" against all US citizens, calling for our death and destruction.

So if it comes down to who I want to believe... do I choose to believe the sarcastic wit of a young disgruntled liberal who has an axe to gring with conservatives.. OR DO I WANT TO BELEIVE THAT THE TERRORISTS ARE SERIOUS when they say that they think we are the "great satan" and they want to destroy me?! Thus having figured out who I believe... I choose the side of the conservatives... in which I say.. even though I'm no longer in the military, I support the action of fighting overseas to head off fututre problems before they come to fruition... after all, as I mentioned.. you would be a FOOL if you DIDN'T belive the terrorists at their word, but you would be a FOOL if you believed a lame author of a website who downplays the seriousness of fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Whether or not young republicans join up to fight is pointless.. just because they don't join doesn't make the mission any less important. Every other country in the world has demonstrated for over 20 years that they ARE NOT willing to do anything about it besides give money to poor countries and TALK about the "issues" behind terrorism. It should be obvious to everyone involved, that the "issues" are always changing with terrorists... thus we cannot give them what they want, because they will always want more... if I remember correctly, they first hated us because we were "western crusaders".. then they hated us after Israel became a nation in the 60's.. then they hated us because of our "western decadence" in the 70's and 80's... then we became peaceful under Clinton in the 90's.... but they still hated us for some reason... now they attacked us in 2001 at the WTC... for some unknown conglomeration of reasons.

So where do we begin in the appeasment if we follow the liberals plan?

 
At 10 July, 2005 18:19, Anonymous Sue said...

michael, shut the fuck up you fascist theocrat repthuglican, you and your baby killing fascist friends started this war along with the CHICKENHAWKS and now we have to pay for it

terrorists just want to be LEFT ALONE, so let's stop this evil war and stop recruiting and stop drafts and there will be no one to fight awful wars anymore

 
At 10 July, 2005 23:38, Anonymous Martha said...

right on!

 
At 11 July, 2005 15:38, Anonymous Professor Illuminata said...

Michael,
I'm afraid you're guilty of some truly fallacious logic yourself. If you are going to draw a parallel between the argument of OYE (those in favor of this war should be willing to fight it) and WWII or the Revolutionary War, the fact that "only a small majority wanted to be liberated from Europe, and an even smaller number of people wanted to join in WW2" is utterly irrelevant -- in fact, a non sequitur. If there *were* a valid analogy here, you would have to claim that there were TONS of people sitting at home in favor of WWII who did not enlist, and we won anyway. I don't think that's the case, so there's no analogy to make. In fact, as people have pointed out elsewhere on this site, there were hardly widespread recruitment shortages during WWII, or other wars where people lied about their age to join up.

Now I suppose the fact that I teach college-level logic will be completely irrelevant to you, as you will automatically write me off as one of the "mega-liberals, pacifists, socialists, pro-totalitarians, anti-us-on-everything etc...basically your typical ex-drug using hippies on college campuses" despite the fact that I never take drugs and am far too young to be a hippie. :) [I'll cop to being a pacifist and a socialist, though -- positions borne of my childhood Christian indoctrination.]

It's just, if you're going to go on a rant about logic, get it right, for God's sake, or sign up for some college classes, to which you are now entitled, having served (I'm assuming) honorably.

 
At 11 July, 2005 22:19, Anonymous sue said...

they just want brown people to die in imperialist wars, it's a double whammy

 
At 12 July, 2005 15:35, Blogger Craig Heath said...

Like many of his ilk, Michael needs some history lessons and a basic understanding of human behavior before he goes spouting off about war and politics and everything in-between.

Consider this from Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win a comprehensive study of all suicide bombing attacks since 1980:

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

So his drivel about how they hated us in the 70's and 80's just for our "western decadence" and how we "became peaceful under Clinton in the 90's" is just that - drivel. Michael volunteered and (presumably) fought for a phantom ideal - the propaganda reason for the war on terror. He still believes that "the terrorists" hit us first, and we were the victims of their evil, just innocent little America not hurting anyone.

And no, Michael - your "opinion on being 'prowar'" does not become valid simply because you served. Being prowar or antiwar is a socio-political position, one that can be held by anyone regardless of whether they wore a uniform or not.

The point of OYE is that many young people today enthusiastically support an imperial war intended to subjugate other societies for the strategic and economic gain of the new American empire. It is not a war of defense - it is a chosen war of our leaders and their corporate owners - and anyone who supports it (especially for the ignorant reasons you cite) should be held accountable for their position and told to go fight it.

But so many don't - why is that, Michael? Aren't they patriotic Americans like yourself? Are they somehow special, set apart from the thousands who do fight and die?

Or is it because they are hypocrites?

 
At 12 July, 2005 19:45, Anonymous Michael said...

Typical college teacher, and an even more frenzied typical response from those incapable of error.. (neo-libs).

First to the logic teacher.. what is my logical fallacy? What error did I make when I drew a correlation between those who supported WW2 and did not sign up and those who suppored Iraq and sign up? The only factual note I left out.. which I assumed a "highly intelligent" COLLEGE academia waste case like Dr.Spock would pick up.. was that there was a DRAFT. Otherwise, the naysayers, pacifics, and socialists would have prevailed, and we would either be dead or taken over.

The only false logic I can see is the OYE logic that THOSE WHO SUPPORT A WAR MUST ALSO FIGHT IT. Which brings me back to my original point about the 1776 revolution, and WW2, in which I note that only a small percentage ACTUALLY supported these wars.. Thus your point is negated when you analyze the faulty logic/straw man argument that is posed by OYE and its constituents.

Bogus assertions, half baked conspiracy theories, and anti-conservative loqucious diatribes are all I seem to be reading on this site... yeah, sure, you may top off your paragraph arguments with Authors like Pape, who by the way agree that Terrorism should be challenged militarily, and rogue regimes (cough cough, saddam) should be contained. And you may use sarcasitc blog-inspired conspiracy theoried cut and paste ideology from other 3rd party liberal blogs, but that still doesn't change the fact that even though COLLEGE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES and COLLEGE DEMOCRAT LIBERALS are BOTH not signing up for duty... just like during WW2 and just like at the 1776 revolutionary war (even though there was not a bi-cam party system -the point is still the same).

So back to my original post, my main point, even though college repubicans are NOT doing the RIGHT THING... doesn't mean that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong. Mr-logic-professor will be the first to explain the "false dilemma" that is created by OYE stating that -those conservatives who support the war on terror must sign up and fight.

Finally, lets get to the real point of OYE. This site is not about "yellowness" of the elephants. Rather it is about the belief that the entire operation in Iraq and elsewhere is a sham. One big giant conspiracy from Bush to get the USA to invade the middle east... what this fails to acknowledge is that the Liberal Democrats would ALSO have to be involved in the "big conspiracy" from the quote "American empire" and our "corporate owners". Since these liberal college professors have seletive memories, let me remind you that Clinton in 1998 said Iraq was builing WMDs... and Clinton bomded Iraq because of that fact. Oh yeah.. Clinton was a "coroporate slave" to McDonalds.. maybe he was bombing because he "knew" Bush would "steal the election" and then "invade Iraq for Oil".

Whew.. too many College professor/mega-lib conspiracies to deal with at once... there must be a million co-conspirators at work pushing this evil-anti-environment pro-war-anti-drug,pro-bigbusiness, anti-socialist agenda... whoops I forgot to work in religion and abortion.

After all... those reasons just mentions are why you really don't like the college young republicans... not just that they aren't signing up to fight in Iraq.

 
At 12 July, 2005 20:03, Anonymous Michael said...

One more thing... that fact that you critique me on my statemtents, but leave this post unchecked shows your inability to stand back and view the fact objectively..

Quote:

"michael, shut the fuck up you fascist theocrat repthuglican, you and your baby killing fascist friends started this war along with the CHICKENHAWKS and now we have to pay for it

terrorists just want to be LEFT ALONE, so let's stop this evil war and stop recruiting and stop drafts and there will be no one to fight awful wars anymore."

THIS PERSON is your mega-lib disciple. Like most liberals .. ultra-simplistic reasoning, and the inability to rationally deduce that Terrorism (as I said in my first post on this site) was NOT caused by the USA and its MidEast Policies. The "reason" the terrorists hate is is ALWAYS changing... one year its one thing.. the next year its another... one year its Isreal.. then next it is because of the crusades from the middle ages.

We tried "just leaving them alone" .. from 1992 to 1999.. but then they blew up the Embassy, the USS Cole, Bali... I suppose those people in Bali are part of the "bush conspiracy to take oil from Iraq before bush became president in 2001". Haven't heard about that yet.. but then again the college professors haven't received their weekly talking points from the Nancy Pelosi/Michael Moore/MoveOn special interest groups.

Don't worry Sue, the liberals will give you more crap to spout on LibBlogs shortly, keep an eye out in the mail for your talking points, or just tune into CNN, Al-Reuteurs, or AP (all propaganda).

 
At 12 July, 2005 23:54, Anonymous Liebchen said...

Michael, speaking as an Academy-gradute and a veteran, I say that you are off base in your basic presumptions regarding those with you you disagree.

Not every veteran feels compelled to believe the propaganda used to justify their misuse and abuse by the leaders. Many, many veterans who have kept their eyes open and their minds clear for possibly the frequently disconcerting contradictions between what our government says and what it actually does.

In fact, it has been said by many throughout the history of our nation (and by other wise souls throughout world history) that it is the obligation of a true patriot to use their own brains to think for the betterment of the community, and not to believe every line of bullshit they are handed.

Have you never read what Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, Commandant of the Corps, wrote in his famous essay, "War is a Racket"? He said that war is an enterprise perpetrated by the ultra-wealthy, and that the military is the "enforcers" of that racket. He claimed to have been the ultimate "Chief Enforcer" for the racketeers of American Industry.

Imagine, if you will, what it must have felt like to be a landser in Russia in 1942. Do you think that every German footsoldier was necessarily evil? Or were they used and abused by their leadership in an enterprise that ultimately led to the downfall of all that they cherished? It has often been thus, Michael, and it will continue to be so until EVERYONE - veterans or not - starts to use their own critical thinking functions to come up with conclusions based upon the facts.

The problem, unfortunately, is that too many people start with the conclusions and cherry-pick the facts to fit. It simply doesn't work that way, Michael.

Oh, yeah, another military maxim you might want to recall: "Know your enemy." Every time someone spouts the truism that terrorists "hate freedom" they are ignoring every bit of evidence available to them; and they are choosing - deliberately! - to NOT know their enemies. This is a guarantee for failure, buddy.

 
At 13 July, 2005 00:06, Anonymous Liebchen said...

Oh, yeah, one more thing: We (the United States Military) have NEVER just "left them alone" (as you put it). No nation has fought more wars per annum, in all of history, than has the United States of America. This is especially so if you include wars by proxy, where we arm and train foreign armies, provide them with intelligence and directives, and (on the flip side) punish nations that do not prosecute wars that our govt feels are compelling.

Bali? Bali was just a convenient target, full of American and Austrialian civilians. Try the Philippines, where our army has been helping the Christian Philippino army crush the Muslim Moros for decades. Or how about East Timor, where President Bush 41 helped the govt of Indonesia annex and crush all resistance and run death camps and, basically, conduct what has come to be called "ethnic cleansing" (a euphemism akin to "collateral damage," if you ask me).

USS Cole? Again, a convenient target in the regaion. We had an army in Saudi Arabia, which is exactly what these terrorists were protesting. (By the way, this is not an opinion unique to terrorists. The govt of the supposedly-friendly Oman refuse to let American sailors even touch their soil on the wharf without absolute necessity.)

Know your enemy -- and know yourself, too, Michael. If our govt is going to go stomping around the world, making waves, we'd better be prepared for some backwash.

 
At 13 July, 2005 00:09, Blogger Craig Heath said...

Many thanks to liebchen for a (one of several) concise point that speaks to the heart of the matter: it is not the soldier who fights the battle who is to blame, but those who sent him into battle for false and immoral reasons. I respect our soldiers and want to have a strong military to protect us from real danger, and for that reason despise our leaders who callously misuse them for reasons having nothing to do with the stated patriotic bull.

I know that fighters need a strong and consistent reason for fighting in order to build morale and stay in the fight - what I hate is feeding them bullshit as that reason, and having them fight and die for hidden agendas instead of true defense of our country.

"Cherry-picking the facts to fit" is what our leaders did to get us into this war. As liebchen advises, Michael, don't make the same mistake. Even if you were in country and humped a ruck and ate sand and maybe dropped an ali baba or two with your M4, you still don't need to buy the bullshit and go along with the whole program. Look and think - you can change your mind at any time.

 
At 13 July, 2005 00:19, Blogger Craig Heath said...

Oh, and one more thing - yeah, Clinton (and every president since FDR) was a slave to the plutocracy just like Bush, and I'm not saying that only Bush or only Republicans are to blame. And despite your attempt to dismiss arguments with the constant repetition of the "conspiracy" meme, it is not that simple - it doesn't even have to be a conspiracy. All it takes is powerful people looking out for their own interests by taking power where they find it, and it all amounts to the same thing:

"The general sat, and the lines on the map / Moved from side to side."

 
At 13 July, 2005 00:33, Anonymous Liebchen said...

Actually, there is a conspiracy, one as old as humanity, itself. It is the conspiracy of those who have power to keep it at all costs. Their willing co-conspirators are those who allow themselves to be convinced that "all costs" is justified.

Sometimes this justification comes from fear (of reprisal, perhaps, or fear of the state-prescribed boogiemen, in this case "terrorists"). Often the justification is due to a delusion that they will get a piece of that illusive and exclusive pie.

Finally, justification often comes from more ephemeral reasons than that. (How about: a) A seat in heaven, or b) 40 virgins, or even c) [insert religious and/or ideological ideal of your choice here].)

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't conspiring against you." (Actually, crying "conspiracy theory" is a classic form of non-arguing. It's a way of distracting from the message by pidgeon-holing the message, instead.)

 
At 13 July, 2005 10:19, Anonymous Professor Illuminata said...

Ok, Michael, let me try this again.

You wrote:
"Following that faulty logic [that those approve the war must be willing to join up and fight] we would have never fought for independence from England, or joined WW2 to save Europe. Since only a small majority wanted to be liberated from Europe, and an even smaller number of people wanted to join in WW2."

You seem to be taking issue with the following logic (Aristotelian enthymeme follows):
General Premise (implied): When only a small majority of people want to fight a war, we don't fight it.
Specific Premise: Only a small majority of people wanted to fight in the war of independence and WWII.
Conclusion: We would never have fought for independence from England or joined WW2.

I agree that this is dumb logic, because the general premise has questionable truth value, and I have no idea if the specific premise is true either. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that a better general premise would be "We fight (and win) wars whether a majority of people support them or not."

However, the logic of the OYE campaign is this:
General premise: People who truly believe in something should be willing to have the courage of their convictions.
Specific premise: Lots of people of eligible-to-serve age really believe we should be sending troops to Iraq.
Conclusion: Eligible-for-military-service people who truly believe we should be sending troops to Iraq should have the courage of their convictions and go.

While we can also certainly critique this logic (and there are several corollaries implied by this set of premises that I won't go into now but would be happy to later if you insist), my point was that the two lines of logic are not compatible. General premises have to be similar or it's very difficult to make good analogies. OYE's logic has NOTHING to do with whether a majority of the population supports or does not support the war in Iraq. It simply says that those who support it should go fight it, especially since we are desperately short of troops.

You brought up the draft -- fair enough. Yes, if we institute a draft for this war, then lots of people are going to be forced to go fight whether they support the war or not, and maybe we'll win. Is this a better solution to our troop shortage? Try suggesting this to some of your YR or CR friends and see what they think.

 
At 14 July, 2005 10:49, Blogger Truth & Consequences said...

Perhaps the twit who started this site should take a survey of the young people fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask THEM if they are republican or democrat. The majority are republicans. That is why scumbag Al Gore attempted to suppress their mail-in votes in Florida during the 2000 election. Ask THEM if they would have rather had Al Gore or John Kerry at the helm post 9-11. But we don't expect that from a transparent agitprop artist like you, and not a very good one at that. You are not a conservative Christian, and since you don't even have the guts to identify yourself, we can't really even ascertain who or what you are. Let me suggest that you are not even a person, but rather an organization which, like Moveon.org has as its sole purpose the proliferation of misinformation and smearing of republicans. These are standard Leftist tactics. Too bad you don't rely on facts. You wouldn't even exist if that were the case.

 
At 15 July, 2005 16:28, Anonymous Michael said...

Jim... you and I should know by now that Liberal never acknowledge facts.. after all, these university professors have brainwashed all college students from 1969 forward that Facts are "relative"---and "truth" is subjective.

For instance, if you go back up and read the posts I made, you will see frenzied responses using demo-lib-rhetoric, and you will also see that none of the posts acknowledge any of the facts I stated, rather the proceed with personal attacks (even though they don't know me) and only take issue with my "logic" comment.

Notice they completely DISREGARD the TRUE statements about Terrorists always having different reasons for hating the USA, how we can't "just leave them alone", how the world has done nothing about the terrorism problem, and rogue regime problem for the past 30-40 years....

also these liberal swamp fever sufferers never back up their claims about the "corporate masters" who control the vast RIGHT wing conspiracy.. nor do they explain how Bush and the "Vast right wing conspirators" were able to dupe millions of people into doing their bidding. Also no-explanation on why Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 (when the democrats said WMD's were in Iraq). Oh yeah.. thats right... Clinton is in on the BIG CONSPIRACY, just like George Bush.. maybe they're all on a treasure hunt with the declaration of independence map... a map that leads to Oil in Iraq for sure!!

Rest assured though, that these folks will say that the War on Terror is leading the CORPORATE SLAVES (people like you and I) into a preplanned IMPERIALISTIC WAR (even though we are not making any 51st state, and even though NOONE from the USA wants to move to Iraq to start a US colony)... despite these facts... liberal blow hards responding to my original comments range from Corporate Slave crap... to "imperialistic war", and "war for oil" comments... I guess they don't know that for an Empire to exist we must have US territories outside of the USA... and Iraq and Afghanistan are not territories.. rather they are under military occupation, which comes to an end eventually within years.

A state taken by an empire becomes a posession of that empire, as well as the resources and peoples. The last time I checked.. a majority of Iraq oil was going to EUROPE-not the US! and the rest of the resources are staying in Iraq.. such as copper, aluminum, grains, salt etc... Also no people are being used to make US products, nor are we TAXING any of the Iraqi people (things that empires do)... therfore I have deduced that the EMPIRE claim and the Corporate Slave claims are baseless, like 90% of all liberal arguments-- they heard it on CNN or from some dimwit college cronie professor who has been DICTATOR of their classroom too long.

 
At 15 July, 2005 16:52, Anonymous michael said...

Professor Illuminata,

you state my general premise completely wrong.. which is why YOU are wrong! And is scary that you are teaching young minds to argue.

What I actually said in my post:

If we only fight in wars that the "people" supported ---we would NOT have fought in 1776 against England, and we would NOT have fought in WW2, this is due to the FACT that a majority of people did not support taking action.

OYE claims that Republicans are "yellow" because they are not signing up in disproportionate numbers to fight, but then again neither are liberals... but according to OYE it DOESN'T matter that liberals are not signing up because it it a baseless war... however if you follow that claim, as I said in my posts- this is faulty logic at best, because if you believe that Liberals are vindicated for being cowards because THEY BELIEVE it is an unjust war, it would also mean that vice versa you must also accept the claims that the WAR IS JUST by conservatives who DO sign up to fight.

To claim that college republicans are yellow because they are not enlisted, is the same as saying those who supported WW2 or 1776 revolution, but were not in the military were yellow. Tell that to the founding fathers, soldiers families and the plethora of others that never fought in a war but supported the effort.

Therefore it is faulty logic on the part of OYE to deduce that all conservatives who support, but do not sign up are yellow.

 
At 05 August, 2005 13:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, but they are.
Like all those throughout history who lack the courage of their "convictions", they prefer others to do their dirty work for them. How sad.

 
At 05 August, 2005 13:50, Blogger fallout11 said...

Iraq: What Are We Fighting For?
An "Islamic republic," that's what
by Justin Raimondo
Why are we in Iraq? According to George W. Bush and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, we're battling for "freedom," we're fighting for the love of liberty that supposedly burns in every heart – right?

A look at the Iraqi constitution, which is now in its draft form, makes it very clear that the only proper answer to that contention is an emphatic – no way, José!

Let's start with Article 1, which defines who is eligible to become a citizen of Iraq:

"Any individual with another nationality (except for Israel) may obtain Iraqi nationality after a period of residency inside the borders of Iraq of not less than ten years for an Arab or twenty years for any other nationality.

"An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli."

Ah yes, Iraq the "model" – but what is it a model of? Nazism? Speaking of which, here's an ominous phrase from Article 5:

"The Iraqi people are one people, unified by belief and the unity of the homeland and culture. Anything that exposes this unity to danger is forbidden."

Uh oh. Does any of that sound familiar? Here's a hint for all you history buffs out there: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer!"

Article 5 is awash in bromides about "equality" and "human dignity," but when it gets right down to brass tacks, the State is All:

"The state shall take responsibility for combating moral and behavioral depravity and encourage people and agencies to spread virtue, providing it help and support. The state shall ensure harmony between the duties of woman toward her family and her work in the society and equality with men in the fields of political, social, and economic life without conflicting with or disturbing the provisions of the Islamic shari'a."

Here we all thought the Bushies just wanted to spread "democracy," loosely defined, but now we've got U.S. guns behind an effort to "spread virtue." No wonder Jerry Falwell and the Christian fundamentalists are standing foursquare behind the war effort – but what's this guy doing on the pro-war bandwagon?

We aren't just fighting terrorism in Iraq, no sir-ree! On account of our efforts – and on our dime – the government of "liberated" Iraq is taking on "moral and behavioral depravity" – although why this campaign seems to extend to Baghdad, but not, say, Manhattan's Soho district, or even Washington, D.C., is one of those mysteries we may never solve.

There is nothing mysterious, however, about the politics of the authors of this constitution: national socialism with an Islamic veneer is the guiding principle animating the founders of the new Iraqi state. The socialist element infuses Article 5:

"The state shall guarantee the realization of the social guarantee necessary for citizens in case of old age, disease, inability to work, or if they are homeless, orphans, widowed, or unemployed. It shall provide them social insurance services and health care and protect them from the talons of ignorance, fear, and want, providing them with housing, and special programs to train them and care for them. A law shall be issued regarding this."

A pretty cushy deal, eh? Oh, but it gets better in Article 7:

"Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security and free health care. The Iraqi federal government and regional governments must provide it and expand the fields of prevention, treatment, and medication by the construction of various hospitals and health institutions".

I guess the Iraqi Founders can afford to be generous. After all, you're paying for it – yeah, that's right, you, the American taxpayer. You may be unemployed, widowed, orphaned, and eventually driven into homelessness by confiscatory taxation or just the sheer cruelty of having to keep pace with the rat race, but please rest assured that none of these terrible fates will be suffered by the Iraqis. You may be without healthcare, but no Iraqi will go without. That's what it means to be "liberated," these days – if you don't wind up as "collateral damage," you get to spend other people's money, and the sky's the limit.

Sweet!

Another key tenet of national socialism – government control of the media – is institutionalized in Article 6. Buried amid a plethora of "democratic"-sounding buzz-words – "freedom of culture," "freedom of opinion," and "freedom of publishing" – is the money quote:

"There is no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, advertising, or media except by law."

Translation: They're already putting the nameplates on the doors to the Office of the Chief Censor.

To read this document is to wander through a mental landscape of such utter strangeness, a sensibility so alien that the Western mind can hardly conceive its meaning, let alone imagine life under its strictures. This is a "constitution" straight out of Bizarro World, where every familiar principle of individual rights and legal protections is stood on its head.

The right to travel, both within and out of the country, supposedly granted in Article 9, is circumscribed by the same sort of exculpatory phrase that paves the way for censorship: it is "guaranteed … except in cases defined by law." All citizens are entitled to "the right of protection against intellectual, political, sectarian, religious, and national coercion," according to Article 10, but only "so long as [this protection] is by law." In other words: only up until we feel like cracking down, whereupon we shall do so ruthlessly. Article 11 guarantees "the right of political asylum … to all oppressed." We are sternly informed that "it is forbidden to surrender a political refugee" – unless, of course, it is "someone accused of international crimes." You needn't be guilty – an accusation is sufficient. Off to Guantanamo with you!

Not even slavery is out of bounds. Article 12 states:

"Compulsory service (the corvee), slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, or any work that is imposed on the Iraq citizen not in accordance with the provisions of the constitution or the law are forbidden."

What if a slave is treated in accordance with the provisions of the Iraqi constitution – what if he or she is provided with cradle-to-grave healthcare, is given the "right" (nay, the duty) "to work" (another "social right" enshrined therein), and treated in accordance with Islamic law, which is the self-proclaimed basis of this document? In the absence of any specific law explicitly forbidding slavery, it is apparently quite legal to own slaves in "liberated" Iraq. Aside from that, the Iraqi government sets aside the possibility of compulsory service to the state. There are many variations of slavery, and all of them are allowed under the terms of this constitution, unless otherwise specified by the enactment of some future law.

Article 13 proclaims "citizens are equal in assuming public position" – but only "in accordance with the conditions established by law." This enables the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government to attach any number of political, sectarian, or ideological conditions to the rules of eligibility for holding public office.

The apotheosis of this Islamofascist legal-political doctrine has got to be Article 13, my own personal favorite, which solemnly states:

"1. Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency."

In Basra, in the south of Iraq, the religious police are already patrolling the streets, brutally repressing all signs of un-Islamic behavior: alcohol, bright clothing, modern haircuts, men who shave their faces, unveiled women, and other such abominations. This provision legalizes these fanatic vigilante gangs and paves the way for their institutionalization as legal arms of the "Islamic Republic of Iraq." Oh, but Article 13 gets better (or worse, that is, if you're not a citizen of Iraq's Bizarro World "democracy"):

"2. Citizens' private lives are protected. Citizens may enjoy it in compliance with moral values and decency. No citizen has the right to deviancy in the use of his right or to exercise any of his rights….

Yes, your life in "liberated" Iraq is "protected," and you are even allowed to "enjoy it" – but only if you're not a "deviant" as defined by some mullah. In which case, we'll skin you alive: "No citizen has the right to deviancy." Did they take that straight out of the Republican Party platform? Here's one provision, however, they most certainly didn't borrow from the GOP:

"Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law."

Does the National Rifle Association know about this? Perhaps the NRA ought to get busy setting up an affiliate in Iraq: I have a hunch they'd be wildly popular.

On a recent trip by Prime Minster Ibrahim al-Jaafari to Tehran, where he spoke of establishing a mutual Iraq-Iran defense pact, the newly elected Iraqi leader paid a visit to the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom he hailed as the fountainhead of Islamic orthodoxy. The old madman's strict brand of Shi'ite fundamentalism is embraced by Jaafari's Da'wa party, which found refuge (and aid) in Iran during the years of Saddam's reign.

As Professor Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, observed recently in Salon, "The Iraq war is over – and the winner is Iran." While this anomalous result may seem a bit odd, regular readers of this space will not be at all surprised: they read all about it here, first, years before Jafaari's pilgrimage to Tehran.

One by one, the bogus rationales for this futile and increasingly costly war are abandoned. Weapons of mass destruction – nada. Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda – zilch. "Freedom" and "democracy"? Forget it: the new constitution ensures that neither will emerge.

Which raises the question we started out asking: Why are we in Iraq?

Why did 1,700-plus American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have to die, with many more than that grievously wounded, physically and psychologically? Did all this suffering and death come about due to the moral imperative of setting up an Iranian-style "Islamic Republic of Iraq," as the country will be known henceforth? While some Americans are not-so-subtly encouraged to join the military as a way out of a generations-long cycle of poverty, we're pouring billions down the ratholes of Iraq's emerging state bureaucracy, handing out cash by the barrel to finance the rule of Iraqi mullahs. We're training their police, whose job it will be to enforce the strictures of sharia law: rounding up unveiled women in the streets and beating the heck out of them as they do in Tehran, while clapping more heinous examples of "deviancy" in jail, perhaps amputating a few limbs, or at least a few fingers here and there – and executing those deemed the worst offenders in an act of ritualized barbarism.

Behold the good works of our brave soldiers. They're building schools that will indoctrinate future students in the aphorisms of past spiritual and political leaders – especially the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the object of the Iraqi prime minister's adulation. They're building roads that will one day link up the Shi'ite party militias in Iraq with their brethren across the border, the Iranian military and "Revolutionary Guards." They're guarding the very building where the Founding Fathers of Iraq are gathered in solemn conclave, putting the finishing touches on a document that is the perfect offspring of neoconservative delusion and Straussian deception. Without the Americans to guard the fort, the Iraqi government, we are told, would collapse tomorrow, and Iraq, they wail, would descend into "chaos."

Yet there are many conditions far worse than chaos, and one of them is tyranny. The Iraqi constitution gives an ersatz "legal" and political form to the worst sort of theocratic authoritarianism, one potentially far more stringent than the sort that dominates Iran. The overwhelming electoral victory of the SCIRI-Da'wa-Sadrist ticket, in spite of the best U.S. covert effort to inflate the vote for ex-Ba'athist Iyad Allawi, guarantees pro-Iranian forces control of the governmental apparatus, including the security forces. The revolutionary fervor of Khomeinism, which has just about run its course in Tehran, is finding renewed vigor in the victory of the "Islamic revolution" in Iraq.

We always find it necessary to build up our enemies – to even create them out of nothing – before we take them on. Osama bin Laden was an American creature before he was anything, and the same goes for our future enemies in "liberated" Iraq. By the time we get around to declaring Iran the new enemy, however, the American public will be too well trained – or shell-shocked – to remember back that far.

That is where Antiwar.com comes in: it's our job to continually remind people of such inconvenient history, even as our leaders repeat the same patterns and policies that led us to the current disaster. We're the institutional memory – i.e., the conscience – of a movement to put an end to this folly, which is our policy of perpetual war, and bring our troops home.

Good God, just reading the Iraqi constitution was one of the most painful experiences I've had to endure since… well, since this [Thursday] morning, when I was forced to sit at my desk listening to Tony Blair drone on in that tone of singsong smugness and self-righteous moral superiority – while, right outside my door, cops searched the premises of the school across the street for a possible bomb. (It turned out the suspicious package left on the school doorstep was a bag of rags probably belonging to some street bum: still, I was stuck inside for 45 minutes while they made sure Osama bin Laden hadn't targeted my neighborhood for his next terrorist strike.)

Not only do we have to pay for the farce that is the "Islamic Republic of Iraq," but we have to live in constant fear, so that every bundle of old clothes discarded by the many vagrants of San Francisco will be the occasion for a street closing and a chance for the bomb squad to do its stuff, sirens wailing. It isn't enough that our suicidal policies in the Middle East are leading to fresh wars in the region – now our leaders have brought their wars home. That is the meaning of the London attacks, and it is only a matter of time before a similar meaning is impressed upon us here in America.

Soon, they will be asking: Who lost Iraq? As well they might. Yet I fear another question far more: Who lost America? We all live in dread of the answer.

– Justin Raimondo

 
At 10 August, 2005 00:17, Blogger disabledvet said...

A comment aimed at those stating that those in uniform are overwhelmingly Republican
irst: How many of these guys were underage when the election was held? Many signed up as soon as they turned 18 AFTER 9/11!
Second: Recruiters tend to recruit in the lower socioeconomic classes that tend to vote Democratic. Rich kids don't need to escape poverty, earn money for college, get training for a career on someone else's dime, etc. Mom and Dad can buy that stuff for them!
Third: Most people in the military are aware that although the Republicans talk a good game, their chances of getting raises, better benefits, etc. are better with the Dems. As a disabled vet, I've watched W take the VA from free perscription drugs to the point where I am paying more now that most people with a decent Insurance program (Thats just 1 example - I got more!)
Fourth: a lot of soldiers who did vote for Bush were Conned bigtime! You can't blame them - he tricked an awful lot of civilians too. And soldiers tend to be younger (18, 19) and therefore a little easier to con than someone who remembers Tricky Dick.
Finally: How many of these guys would vote for Bush today after having gone through this living hell for what turned out to be a stacked deck of lies?! How many more are going to wish they hadn't when they get to the VA which has been run into the ground by an uncaring Administration and have to wait a full day for an Emergency Room Visit even though they were PROMISED decent health care if injured while in the service.!

 
At 24 September, 2005 00:22, Blogger dejah said...

Michael and Jim:

CHickenhawks are you?

Deniers are you?

Blathering are you?

Get off yer asses and go fight the "noble fight" that the rest of America is paying for.

Then maybe you have the right to speak about it.

Otherwise, STFU. I'm not terribly impressed with your blatherings...

 
At 11 December, 2005 22:28, Blogger skye said...

Wow..we have resident expert on fascism. Is that your declared major?

Such love and understanding from the "People's Party"

--------------------------------
michael, shut the fuck up you fascist theocrat repthuglican, you and your baby killing fascist friends started this war along with the CHICKENHAWKS and now we have to pay for it

 
At 14 January, 2006 15:39, Blogger Captain Ninja said...

Okay, slightly (or way) off topic, but what do think about the debacle with Dr. Hwang Woo Suk in South Korea? I just published a blog entry on it. I'd love it if you read it. My site's newish and no one seems to read it very much. I'd love your opinion... I swear this isn't a ad or spam or some bs like that. I'm just looking for some thinkin'/readin' folks to take a look and share their thoughts.

 
At 10 March, 2006 18:53, Blogger 1greensix said...

re: micheal..
You folks are wasting your time talking to this idiot. Ask him which UNIT he served in, what was his MOS, to post his last efficiency report, and who was his rater. I think the guys a fake. Anyone can claim to be a veteran, but to be one is something else.

 
At 13 April, 2006 14:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tire of all of this. IF in FACT we did become a Fascist state I can tell you, with conviction, that I would be the first to volunteer to execute every last one of you so-called ,liberals'... Whining and pathetic subhumans!

 
At 13 April, 2006 14:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nazis? - Socialist- Liberals!
Stalinists?- Communist- Liberals!
Khmer Rouge?- Communist- Liberal!
Castro?- Communist- Liberal!

And there are countless others that have committed genocide in the name of so-called Liberalism! Look it up. Do not deny your sorted history.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy. You are all liars, theives, and soul-less murderers. You are worse than animals.

 
At 14 July, 2006 13:03, Blogger Median said...

I like to use this in my responses to "war" supporters.

If you are eligible for service and claim to support the military actions of this country (it is NOT a war until congress says it is. It is only an Authorization to Use Force), then do so. Not with worthless rhetoric or with yellow magnetic ribbons, but with action. Enlist and support the AUF first hand, as our honorable verterans did in the wars and police actions that they actually fought in. I'm a broken down old man, so I can't serve. But even though I don't support the AUF, I truly support the troops in my work with the Air Force. Surely, a staunch supporter of the war can do more: Catch a bullet for the troops you support. Drag a body back to the medics. Trip an IED and save your unit. Enlist now or admit that you're all bluster, and a coward to boot. And a terrorist lover. Because if you're not fighting the terrorists, then you're aiding them.

Let the rationalization begin.

median

 
At 04 September, 2006 03:04, Blogger One Angry Patriot said...

Michael said...

"My only question to the author of this site is... since I have served in the Military (War on terror) does my opinion on being 'prowar' now become valid? Which by the way, if you survey those in the military (or survey most conservatives and moderatesin or out of the military) you will see that most support the "war". The only people who are anti-war are mega-liberals, pacifists, socialists, pro-totalitarians, anti-us-on-everything etc...basically your typical ex-drug using hippies on college campuses, mixed with a tinge of anti-war wolf in sheeps clothing pseudo-conservative half-liberal people such as the author of this site.. these people are the anti-war crowd... topped with a few liberal politico/hollywood superficials to get the point out on libTV such as CNN, Al-Reuters, and AP (all propaganda/associated press)."

I am not the author of this site, but I am a veteran who served in Operation Desert Storm. As a Navy Hospital Corpsman serving in the Fleet Marine Force, during ODS, I provided more first aid for surrendered and/or captured Iraqi troops than I provided for the marines in my unit. Subsequent to my combat service, many of the marines I served with are now afflicted with immune system disorders, are having children with birth defects, and are experiencing symptoms such as chronic fatigue, loss of muscle control, diarrhea, migraines and other headaches, dizziness and loss of balance, memory problems, muscle and joint pain, indigestion, skin problems, and shortness of breath, to name a few.

US Gulf War veterans have experienced mortality rates exceeding those of US Vietnam War veterans. Deaths caused by brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's Disease and fibromyalgia are now recognized by DOD and VA as potentially connected to service during Operation Desert Storm. At the top of the list of possible causes of these ailments are combustion products from depleted uranium munitions, followed by side effects from the early 1990's anthrax vaccine, infectious diseases from parasites, chemical weapons such as nerve gas or mustard gas, or a combination of the aforementioned factors.

In 2004, a British inquiry concluded that thousands of UK and US Gulf War veterans were made ill by their service. The report claimed that Gulf veterans were twice as likely to suffer from ill health than if they had been deployed elsewhere, and that the illnesses suffered were the result of a combination of causes. These included multiple injections of vaccines, the use of organophosphate pesticides to spray tents, low level exposure to nerve gas, and the inhalation of depleted uranium combustion products. In addition, VA Secretary Anthony Principi's panel found that pre-2005 studies suggested the veterans' illnesses are neurological and apparently linked to exposure to neurotoxins, such as the nerve gas sarin, the anti-nerve gas drug pyridostigmine bromide, and pesticides that affect the nervous system. These studies also indicated that psychiatric illness, combat experience or other deployment related stressors do not explain Gulf War veterans illnesses in the large majority of ill veterans.

Today, many US veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom have reported a range of serious health issues, including tumors, daily blood in urine and stool, sexual dysfunction, migraines, frequent muscle spasms, and other symptoms similar to the debilitating symptoms of "Gulf War Syndrome."

Politics has absolutely nothing to do with my opposition to this war. As an independent, it is clear to me that the ever shrinking minority of Americans who support this war are partisans of both major parties, especially when those Americans happen to be members of Congress. My opposition to this war is based on my experience as a combat medic, the obviously combat related illnesses of my fellow combat veterans, and the similar illnesses that are affecting veterans of the current war. Personally, I will continue to oppose all US military operations until the US military stops using weapons with indiscriminate effect, such as depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs, in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the Genocide Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions including Protocol I, the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

 
At 14 October, 2006 00:46, Blogger macacca said...

So, Mikey Boy, you say you were in the service? Well, this veteran of the esteemed 3rd Armor Cavalry Regiment doesn't believe you in the least. In fact, I think your full of Sean Hannity's peanut laden shit, because you sound just like one of these typical "I'm a big patriot and I get to call the liberals and Democrats defeatists and traitors as long as I don't have to do the fightin' cause I'm too busy jerking off to Neil Cavuto on Fox Ooze", picked on by the hip kids in school so you have a chip on the shoulder with the mainstream, upper middle class whitebread "my anscestors killed the Indians so I could have the right to keep out immigrants", "Oh, please don't take my guns Democrats, but you Republicans go right ahead and whittle away my civil liberties" Young Republicunt shithead who's so intellectually inferior that he has to regurgitate Ann "colonoscopy" Coulter"s tired drivel that she stole completey from Rush Limbarf! Was I ranting again? My, I'm so sorry! Anyway, Mikey, back to my belated point: I've got a little test for you so you can prove the truth of your words. Here goes: What do the slang terms "ate up", "beat your face", and "twenty four and a wake up" mean? What do the anacronisms "aa", "sop", "ets" and "mre" stand for? When I say "get on the twenty mikie mike", what am I talking about? What is a DD214? What was your MOS? Answer these questions correctly(don't cheat and ask your military buddies) and I'll at least give you credit for serving king and country, if not exactly for your underwhelming critical thinking skills. But I think your going to pussy out, because you're nothing but a hypocrite chickenhawk that lacks the courage of your convictions. I'll kick the shit out of you in debate, because my favorite sport is burying CON-servatives under the stink of their own intellectually inferior, half- baked arguments. I'll be waiting!!!

 
At 03 December, 2006 09:24, Anonymous Jon said...

So much for the fighting dems.

Do you want to fight any war? This is the most successful occupation in war history. A ~120 to 1 kill ratio is pretty good, wait actually it's the BEST. We've just lost all willpower. Thanks to media and friends!

"I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me." - Democrat Senator Zell Miller

And now you're running out Joe Lieberman, and now you dare claim republicans don't serve? If you mean a bunch of 40 year olds didn't sign up immediately and put their kids in the cold yea sure. They're just aren't a whole lot of conservative teenagers. It's a contradiction, ignorant people tend to be democrat. It's a fact teenagers tend to be more democratic, when they get wiser and grow up, they become more republican.

Most people that signed up after 9/11 signed up because they realized that Islam is at war with the West, and that we must fight it. Read even a tidbit of the Qu'Ran or talk to some apostates, or the ONE Muslim I've heard who admitted the truth.

Read this article about Muslims killing fields at Darfur. All for religion.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15026

"It is my personal belief that the violent and unsavoury elements in Islam must be highlighted by Muslims, admitted and repudiated.

Yet, I am still Muslim, because I believe that Islam can be a secular and modern faith, consistent with democracy. But this will never occur until there is as Walid Shoebat mentioned recently, a 'confession'." Mr. Haidon, a MUSLIM.

I could cite a million qu'ran verses too, but nobody ever cares to actually check if the religion is good or evil.

Muslim arab states routinely stone gays, adulterers, and abortionists. Funny how those are their biggest supporters here!

 
At 11 June, 2007 14:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it funny that the owner of this blog has never served in the military. Mr. OYE Blogman, when will you stand up and BE A MAN?!?!

 
At 16 June, 2007 14:29, Blogger OYE said...

Anonymous (11 June, 2001 14:08)-

The military didn't want me, and now I'm too old.

The Army told me I could best help them by encouraging eligible [younger] people to consider military service.

Hence, Operation Yellow Elephant.

 
At 29 June, 2007 16:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How 'bout you fax yourself, fuckers?

 
At 29 May, 2012 17:08, Blogger patradresses.org said...

Thanks for putting into words what I thought but was not sure of. The idea of Restoration is to restore the INTENT of the founders. Not return to the days of the founding. The slavery issue was a compromise with the back-knowledge of slavery ending over a period of time. The same went for universal sufferage, the founders new it would be corrected over time
bullet hole stickers

 

Post a Comment

<< Home