I would like to hear some of the reasons against the use of drones. I understand problems with killing of innocents and problems with war in general, but what difference does it make if someone is actually in the plane they are flying when they shoot a missle at something? Is it just a buzzword against the war on terror in general?

1/28/2013 10:18:01 AM

Its not simply taking the pilot out of the equation, its taking the pilot out and then using it situations where the use of a plane and pilot would not be justified and would be taken as an act of war. The problem with drones is that they are used for law enforcement actions and assasinations in foreign countries without any due process.

If in a situation when military action is justified, I don't think anyone has a problem with drones as replacement for traditional jets.

1/28/2013 10:32:01 AM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=627980

1/28/2013 10:34:25 AM

Quote :

"I understand problems with killing of innocents and problems with war in general, but what difference does it make if someone is actually in the plane they are flying when they shoot a missle at something?"

It gives terrorists a comparative advantage. The use of a nuclear bomb by the US preceded a 60+ year (and counting) campaign to arrest the proliferation of the technology. We have been (and still are) on the edge of military technology, but like an idiot child getting a Christmas present we unwrapped it and started shooting everyone.

The problem is what happens now as the technology becomes widespread and highly available. We had a narrow window (about 2007 to now) to set a president for military use of the technology, and we blew it hard. Because of the way we used it (effective or not), we may have doomed ourselves to decades of new cold war, trying to stop the spread of military drones. The other possibility is the "drones for everyone!" scenario. Suicide robots will be affordable for anyone who wants them.

Fighter jets and nuclear submarines were GREAT for us! They're expensive and limited to powers large enough that we can debate with at the UN. Drones are a gift-wrapped perfect weapon for terrorists. And we introduced them to the world en mass in our war against terrorism.

Fuck us. Seriously, why do we love to fuck ourselves so much?

[Edited on January 28, 2013 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ]

1/28/2013 10:45:15 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure someone will, but drones are really expensive, aren't they like more than a fighter jet? (just looked it up, a Reaper is 1/2 the cost of a Hornet, but they still cost like $30mil) Additionally aren't they way easier to shoot down than a fighter jet? It seems like they're really only effective against an enemy that has no air power, and extremely limited surface to air power.

[Edited on January 28, 2013 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

1/28/2013 11:24:51 AM

Quote :

"drones are really expensive, aren't they like more than a fighter jet? "

My understanding is the opposite. Drones are the low-cost option. quick googling:

http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-a-cost-benefit-analysis/

I don't know why the spy drone is so expensive, but the standard Predator is very low cost compared to manned alternatives.

Quote :

"aren't they way easier to shoot down than a fighter jet?"

It seems like obviously they would be.

Didn't Iran just do this? I think we usually fly them where the sovereign power is actually interested in shooting them down.

I imagine we would still use drones in conflict with another large power but they would just be bullet fodder. You'd probably make them even more cheaply in that situation because if you can make more drones than they can make AA missiles you can win that battle.

1/28/2013 11:34:29 AM

You could realistically rig up a remote controlled drone with explosives in it good enough to fly a few hundred km and blow some random shit up for far far less though.

I don't think the argument that we gave the tech to the terrorists works though. All the components to do this are available off the shelf and just about anybody good do it for relatively small potatoes for what these guys seem to be able to fund raise.

1/28/2013 11:37:37 AM

Quote :

"I don't think the argument that we gave the tech to the terrorists works though. All the components to do this are available off the shelf and just about anybody good do it for relatively small potatoes for what these guys seem to be able to fund raise."

We didn't give nuclear weapons to (all) other nuclear powers either. What I'm saying is that we've taken the option off the table of a global agreement against drones for killing people. The world lived with our hypocrisy in the case of nuclear weapons, but they won't with drones.

We will never have a political advantage over terrorists who deploy drones. We have ceded that advantage.

1/28/2013 11:46:53 AM

I get that, I'm just saying the startup cost for these things is so low, even if we hadn't used them, they (who they denotes varies) would have. You have to have a LOT of knowledge that's hard to come by, a LOT of fissile material that's damn near impossible to come by, and a LOT of engineering that's hard to come by to produce a nuclear weapon. This is a whole lot easier.

1/28/2013 12:40:47 PM

Since I tangentially work in this business, I'll go ahead and comment.

From a policy perspective, the problem isn't drones persay but the regulations and policy (or the lack thereof) surrounding them. It's not really all that different from the days we used to rain Tomahawks down upon al-Qaeda in the 1990s, just a bit cheaper and faster on the trigger. Same with surveillance, it's no different than them mounting a camera to watch your house or using satellites to watch you. However, national policy and international law haven't caught up to regulate it properly, and that's where the conflicts arise.

With regards specifically to Pakistan, two points. 1) These strikes are clearly being done with tacit support from the Pakistani government. If they really felt this was a violation of their sovereignty and wanted to stop it, they'd activate their integrated anti-aircraft network, scramble a few F-16s then clear the skies. 2) The Pakistan issue is a policy problem, not a technology one. The problem is not that the President is using drones but that the President thinks he has the right to drop bombs on another country to kill people he deems a threat. That is the discussion that needs to be had; the drones are a red herring.

Quote :

"Additionally aren't they way easier to shoot down than a fighter jet? It seems like they're really only effective against an enemy that has no air power, and extremely limited surface to air power."

For the current generation of drones, yes. Again, all you need is a good fighter fleet and an integrated air defense network to chew these things up. Heck, you may even be able to get away with just a few MANPADS.

Quote :

"I don't know why the spy drone is so expensive, but the standard Predator is very low cost compared to manned alternatives."

Predators and Reapers are cheaper because they are very simple aircraft compared to a jet fighter. That being said, you have to be careful with these sorts of comparisons because they are VERY different missions. You use jet fighters primarily for air superiority; surveillance and ground strike are secondary missions for it. Predators and Reapers are slower turboprop, mid-altitude surveillance platforms that have the advantage in loitering but wouldn't survive in contested airspace.

Comparing a Reaper versus a Global Hawk is also different: the latter is a jet-engined aircraft designed for high altitude surveillance missions. Global Hawks also have much better survivability. Think of it as a U-2 replacement rather than a peer to the Reaper and Predator. The sort of control hardware and software for a Global Hawk are also much more complex and sophisticated. Different animal, like comparing a pickup truck to a formula racer: I wouldn't want to be racing in the former or hauling loads with the latter.

As for terrorists using drones... think of it this way. Yes, this will be a concern in that they now have another tool they could use. There are even some concerns about asymmetric warfare. However, don't let there be any confusion: they're not about to start producing Predators or UCAVs. Sure, they could build some crude subsonic explosive or use a Brookstone special to spy on troops, but they're not going to be firing Hellfires or running swarms anytime soon (if at all).

1/28/2013 2:08:23 PM

Quote :

"but they're not going to be firing Hellfires or running swarms anytime soon (if at all)."

What makes you think this?

These are primarily software upgrades, which means it just takes someone sitting down cranking out code to make it work.

1/28/2013 2:19:31 PM

^^

1/28/2013 2:49:14 PM

^^

A terrorist group could build relatively crude UAVs and pack them full of explosives or maybe chem/bio, but I don't think there's any way in the foreseeable future that they develop anything even playing the same sport as a Pred/Reaper with Hellfire.

1/28/2013 2:53:18 PM

Quote :

"Its not simply taking the pilot out of the equation, its taking the pilot out and then using it situations where the use of a plane and pilot would not be justified and would be taken as an act of war. The problem with drones is that they are used for law enforcement actions and assasinations in foreign countries without any due process. If in a situation when military action is justified, I don't think anyone has a problem with drones as replacement for traditional jets."

1/28/2013 3:19:30 PM

The Pred/Reaper with Hellfire is a precision instrument. In that case we're comparing them to the tool the military previously used for the job. Maybe that was a missile, maybe it was a bomber, I don't know, RedGuard wasn't specific on previous military tool the Predator replaced.

But for terrorists, a drone would replace a suicide bomber. Did they use chem/bio weapons? I think they used explosives much more often. There is a limit to how much a pedestrian bomber can carry, which is much less than a car bomb obviously.

A quadcopter would be fairly useless due to the weight of explosives, you'd really want a fixed-wing craft. Our military drones have payloads >1 Ton in cases. The minimum to inflict serious casualties would be much less than this.

Exactly how much autonomy they'd need is an interesting point. Simple video transmission is still pretty burdensome, but maybe you'll be able to pull it off with a set of GPS, altimeter, accelerometers, and a location you've programmed in. Launch dozens at the same time and that can be a pretty intimidating picture. The idea of a "swam" implies coordination to me... and that's just completely irrelevant in this conversation. The more you have in the air the more difficult it is to respond and the more chaos you can create.

1/28/2013 3:19:42 PM

Quote :

" These strikes are clearly being done with tacit support from the Pakistani government. If they really felt this was a violation of their sovereignty and wanted to stop it, they'd activate their integrated anti-aircraft network, scramble a few F-16s then clear the skies."

Because the Pakistani government and military always want the same thing? And its not like the amount of money we funnel to Pakistan or our military actions across a border would make some people hesitant to take down an american aircraft, drone or not.

If its an act of war it needs to be declared, if its a law enforcement action you have to work through that country and due process applies. You shouldn't be allowed to mix and match and create justification for a drone kill list.

1/28/2013 3:29:39 PM

^What advantage then does the UAV have over a missle, or even mortars?

1/28/2013 3:30:10 PM

Persistent surveillance.

1/28/2013 3:31:37 PM

Quote :

"The problem is not that the President is using drones but that the President thinks he has the right to drop bombs on another country to kill people he deems a threat. That is the discussion that needs to be had; the drones are a red herring."

More to the point, we need to discuss the dangers of giving the CIA, which is a civilian agency, their own Air Force. They really shouldn't be in the position to pull the trigger so easily and with so little oversight.

Quote :

"With regards specifically to Pakistan, two points. 1) These strikes are clearly being done with tacit support from the Pakistani government. If they really felt this was a violation of their sovereignty and wanted to stop it, they'd activate their integrated anti-aircraft network, scramble a few F-16s then clear the skies. "

Well, that depends on how you frame the question. Does the Pakistani government support our drone attacks? Yes. Do the majority of Pakistani citizens? No, probably not. Why would they? One of their most popular politicians, Imran Khan, is a fierce advocate of shooting down drones over Pakistan. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/pakistans-imran-khan-must-be-doing-something-right.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)


Drones as a tool give the US the authority to perform extrajudicial assassinations, which is a policy position that was once considered too extreme, even for the Bush administration. And at the end of the day, we should really be asking ourselves what tactical advantage this program gives the United States. If we're trying to reduce the risk of terrorism on our own soil and save American lives, then we need to question the tactics that generate anti-American sentiment across the globe, and our drone program is surely a resounding failure. If, however, we're trying to maintain a sizable technological military advantage while simultaneously padding the pockets of defense contractors, then the program is a wild success.

Anyhoo, I'm gonna try my hardest not to get roped into this discussion. I have a lot of work this week, and this topic can really hijack my productivity if I allow it.

[Edited on January 28, 2013 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2013 3:44:15 PM

Quote :

"These are primarily software upgrades, which means it just takes someone sitting down cranking out code to make it work."

It's a big step to go from packing a crude UAV with explosives to acquiring a sophisticated anti-tank weapon and obtain the fire control software and sensor systems to operate it. It's like asking why Hezbollah hasn't bought or built a Tomahawk cruise missile. Again, I'm not saying that couldn't build a crude turboprop packed with explosives or germs, but it's a very different animal.

Quote :

"Its not simply taking the pilot out of the equation, its taking the pilot out and then using it situations where the use of a plane and pilot would not be justified and would be taken as an act of war. The problem with drones is that they are used for law enforcement actions and assasinations in foreign countries without any due process. If in a situation when military action is justified, I don't think anyone has a problem with drones as replacement for traditional jets."

Quote :

"Drones as a tool give the US the authority to perform extrajudicial assassinations, which is a policy position that was once considered too extreme, even for the Bush administration."

And this is fundamentally different from Tomahawk diplomacy in the 1990s how...? I won't deny drones have made it easier to carry out extrajudicial assassinations, but we've more than had the capability for a long while. My concern is that somehow, the groupthink in Washington and with administration in particular, has changed to think that this is a good idea. That's what disturbs me more, and I think the near frantic hysteria of drones are misplaced when it should be focused on WHY we're doing this.

Quote :

"Does the Pakistani government support our drone attacks? Yes. Do the majority of Pakistani citizens? No, probably not. Why would they? One of their most popular politicians, Imran Khan, is a fierce advocate of shooting down drones over Pakistan."

I completely agree, and I think that the Pakistani drone campaign is dangerous and counterproductive. I also think that the Pakistani government and military will probably have a day of reckoning for the campaign. However, the point I was trying to make was to dispel this notion that drones are some sort of magical wonder weapon. They're not, and any nation with a half-decent air defense system could clear the skies of them if they wanted.

In summary, my point is this, drones are not magical, and while they do represent an incremental technological advance, they are not the great game changer people make them out to be. However, the fear and hysteria emerging from it is distracting from the very real discussion on why we think blowing people up we don't like with little justification in other sovereign nations is going to benefit us in the long run.

1/28/2013 5:42:51 PM

Quote :

"And this is fundamentally different from Tomahawk diplomacy in the 1990s how...?"

I would answer your question with the very next sentence from your post: "I won't deny drones have made it easier to carry out extrajudicial assassinations."

While drones are not a game changer, we should at least discuss the ease with which they allow the escalation of illegal, state-sponsored murders. And moreover, how these extrajudicial assassinations are normalized and met with less scrutiny in spite of how counterproductive it is.

Quote :

"In summary, my point is this, drones are not magical, and while they do represent an incremental technological advance, they are not the great game changer people make them out to be."

I don't think anyone would argue with you on that. Personally, my criticism of drones is based on what they represent, which is the continued occupation of other nations with or without their consent, and the normalization of our military adventurism. The advancement of the technology becomes a precursor to the escalation of policy, in my opinion, precisely because it streamlines our reckless behavior.

Now, we can argue as to whether or not that is a policy/technology difference, but I personally think that's sort of a pedantic exercise. In the end I agree with you that the discussion should revolve around the morality and effectiveness of this campaign more so than the technology.. Are we using these drones because they're keeping us safe, or are we using these drone because empire's gonna empire?

1/28/2013 6:23:45 PM

thread was over after this:

Quote :

"Its not simply taking the pilot out of the equation, its taking the pilot out and then using it situations where the use of a plane and pilot would not be justified and would be taken as an act of war. The problem with drones is that they are used for law enforcement actions and assasinations in foreign countries without any due process. If in a situation when military action is justified, I don't think anyone has a problem with drones as replacement for traditional jets."

1/29/2013 1:44:28 AM

The biggest problem I see is whenever you lessen the human cost of war, you can expect a lot more war.

Isn't it in Brave New World, where they fight wars without killing each other, and so they go to war over the most inane disagreements.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 8:03 AM. Reason : ?]

1/29/2013 8:00:10 AM

Quote :

"In the end I agree with you that the discussion should revolve around the morality and effectiveness of this campaign more so than the technology.. Are we using these drones because they're keeping us safe, or are we using these drone because empire's gonna empire?"

Agreed... depressing watching the administration just keep digging this whole. It's going to collapse in on us all eventually.

1/29/2013 9:22:12 AM

When did we start digging this law enforcement as an excuse for war hole? Noriega and Panama surprised a lot of people because of how illegal the whole thing was, but was it the first? Contras before that? All the way back to the Barbary coast?

1/29/2013 9:33:49 AM

Quote :

"And this is fundamentally different from Tomahawk diplomacy in the 1990s how...? I won't deny drones have made it easier to carry out extrajudicial assassinations, but we've more than had the capability for a long while. "

The hell are you smoking? There's no diplomacy involved in drone strikes.

We've been striking the same tribal villages for years on a regular basis. In addition to killing hundreds, possibly over 1000 innocents, we've terrorized an entire region. Drone-strike injuries often result in death, due to the poor availability of fast-response medical facilities. People will run for cover at the sound of a drone, and we're making daily recon passes over the same populated areas. People have shut themselves in their homes at all times, some not willing to send their kids to school. The economy in these areas has been affected, and the standard of living has deteriorated at a rate that correlates with drone activity. Drone-strikes and ongoing surveillance have created a persistent fear among Pakistanis.

In the 90s, Clinton used the threat of missle strikes (against military targets) to coerce Milosevic (who was actively performing genocide) towards a diplomatic solution.

1/29/2013 10:35:03 AM

He was saying "Tomahawk diplomacy", not talking about actual diplomacy. That was the point of his response.

1/29/2013 10:52:27 AM

Nothing wrong with drones as long as:

1) Obama is using them.

2) Brown people are eating it.

You can pretend its more complicated than that, but dont hurt yourself.

1/29/2013 11:40:08 AM

^As much as that is a troll post it is true. It seems he gets too much of a pass from the left on drones. As for drones overall domestically I fear another move towards a police state with their use over cities for surveillance. It hasn't been cleared yet but eventually it will probably happen.

1/29/2013 1:32:02 PM

Quote :

"In the 90s, Clinton used the threat of missle strikes (against military targets) to coerce Milosevic (who was actively performing genocide) towards a diplomatic solution. "

Wait, what makes a TLAM better than a Hellfire (which has a far, far smaller warhead, by the way).

1/29/2013 8:50:17 PM

Quote :

"You could realistically rig up a remote controlled drone with explosives in it good enough to fly a few hundred km and blow some random shit up for far far less though."

These exist already. They are called missiles.

1/30/2013 12:41:37 AM

Quote :

"He was saying "Tomahawk diplomacy", not talking about actual diplomacy. That was the point of his response."

If he wasn't talking about actual diplomacy, then he shouldn't have referenced an actual diplomatic process.

Quote :

"Wait, what makes a TLAM better than a Hellfire (which has a far, far smaller warhead, by the way)."

Better? What?

1/30/2013 10:02:53 AM

"Tomohawk Diplomacy" is a phrase that he didn't invent that is used for a specific thing. The use of it was appropriate (unless I misunderstood their point). He's not "referencing an actual diplomatic process", he's just using a name for something that you didn't know.

Next time google first?

1/30/2013 10:06:38 AM

The phrase "Tomahawk diplomacy" refers to using the threat of cruise-missle strikes to influence the behavior of dictators. I don't need google to remember it being plastered all over the news in the late 90s, typically in reference to threatening Milosevic or Saddam Hussein into complying with UN resolutions. It doesn't necessarily mean any missiles were fired.

There's no diplomatic goal in drone strikes. It's just "war" or "shooting bad guys".

1/30/2013 12:44:49 PM

Is this like when Clinton leveled an Aspirin factory?

1/30/2013 12:49:54 PM

Quote :

"The phrase "Tomahawk diplomacy" refers to using the threat of cruise-missle strikes to influence the behavior of dictators."

"Tomahawk diplomacy" also referred to the Clinton administration's use of Tomahawk missiles to blow up al-Qaeda terrorists that were deemed a threat to the United States who resided in parts of the world deemed inaccessible to American authorities (like Afghanistan or the Sudan). The administration claimed they were "targeted" to minimize civilian casualties, based on actionable intelligence and didn't risk American lives though the certainly pissed off the locals who happened to live near the targets. I think many of the arguments are echoed today with the drone campaign; the only difference is that back then, the Clinton administration treated it as a grave and serious decision. Today, people just shrug.

1/30/2013 1:43:22 PM

US drone policy:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite&preview=true

2/5/2013 1:56:26 AM

Quote :

"The condition that a [target(American citizen or otherwise)] present an "imminent" threat of attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."

Drones were used in the Alabama school bus hostage situation this week.

The tech demo of the ARGUS camera is very impressive. It can monitor an entire city with security cam resolution all in perfect focus in real time. Forget police cameras on every street corner like they have in the UK...this drone sees every person on every sidewalk with one camera.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/06/argus_is_could_the_pentagon_s_1_8_gigapixel_drone_camera_be_used_for_domestic.html

[Edited on February 7, 2013 at 12:01 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2013 11:54:16 PM

Quote :

"Wait, what makes a TLAM better than a Hellfire (which has a far, far smaller warhead, by the way)."

Someone's been out of the Pubs for a while.... TLAM has a WAAAY extended range from the Hellfire (like order of 100x more range) AND you don't have to get anything near the target to launch a TLAM from a SSN or a DDG.

2/7/2013 5:33:53 PM

We know Dick Cheney has no problem with drones. Must be fine then.

Quote :

"Former Vice President Dick Cheney became the highest profile Bush Administration official to come out in support of President Obama’s drone targeted killings policy when he dismissed concerns about “checks and balances” and explained on CBS This Morning that Obama’s “paid to make difficult, difficult decisions.”"

2/13/2013 9:33:42 AM

the FAA aint down with the people using drones for commercial use

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/03/14/faa-grounds-local-aerial-photo-business/

3/15/2013 11:44:16 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/world/asia/origins-of-cias-not-so-secret-drone-war-in-pakistan.html

Good article on this issue.

4/8/2013 9:54:21 AM

The other issue, which isn't widely discussed (see above link), is that foreign countries secretly permit the US to conduct drone strikes on their own soil (Pakistan, Yemen). They have the political option to decry the use of drones in public, while acquiescing to their use in private. In the case of Yemen (as revealed by Wikileaks), they also get to claim the strikes as victories for their own militaries.

In the case of Pakistan, note that only a small minority of targets are actually aligned with al-Qaeda. The remainder are often associated with the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), which Pakistan has an interest in curbing. After failed land campaigns on their frontier, the Pakistani government seems to prefer US drone strikes.

In Yemen, AQAP is a terrorist organization which both the US and the Yemeni government want to keep a lid on.

4/12/2013 8:58:34 AM

Again--The Pakistani government gave the US permission to launch drone strikes on its own soil, despite their public protests.

Source...former President Musharraf:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/asia/pakistan-musharraf-drones/index.html

4/14/2013 5:51:09 PM

Quote :

"If he wasn't talking about actual diplomacy, then he shouldn't have referenced an actual diplomatic process. "

Jesus fucking Christ facepalm.

Quote :

"Someone's been out of the Pubs for a while.... TLAM has a WAAAY extended range from the Hellfire (like order of 100x more range) AND you don't have to get anything near the target to launch a TLAM from a SSN or a DDG. "

...of course...although when you talk about the range of, say, a Reaper+Hellfire, the gap narrows considerably, although they are 2 wildly different weapons systems for different uses.

...but my statement was specifically referencing warhead size, which has major collateral damage implications.


^, ^^ Yes.

4/14/2013 6:14:22 PM

Holy shit, Maverick's posting.

4/14/2013 7:05:11 PM

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-children-killed-by-americas-drones-crimes-against-humanity-committed-by-barack-h-obama/5320570

4/18/2013 8:51:17 PM

I had remembered this link from some previous thread

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

It's actually kind of hilarious when I see new stories like this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9977570/Air-strike-kills-11-children-in-Afghanistan.html

So if we believe "official" sources, at most 5 civilians died last year due to drone strikes. But yet in some random weekend we'll kill 11 kids. Real credible numbers there.

4/24/2013 12:25:42 PM

Quote :

"On Friday at 7:05pm Eastern Time, Boston Police received a report that suspected terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding in a boat in Watertown. At 7:15pm, the low buzz of a drone was heard overheard. Seconds later, an enormous explosion engulfed the area, destroying the boat and several nearby homes. Sources say 46 Watertown residents were killed in the missile strike, including 12 children. ... Of course, that's not what happened. But if it did, wouldn't we find it unconscionable? If so, then why are Americans okay with our government doing this to people in other countries? In Pakistan alone, the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000 people with drone strikes... and only 1 out of 50 were suspected terrorists. The rest were bystanders, rescue workers, and children. Let's stop this madness now. One people. One planet. ?"

4/24/2013 12:56:53 PM

They got all them teeth and no toothbrush.

4/24/2013 4:22:53 PM