Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Depleted U - An impromptu interview w/ a Career Tank Specialist
Source: me
URL Source: http://none.com
Published: Apr 27, 2005
Author: Tom007
Post Date: 2005-04-27 22:07:28 by tom007
Keywords: Specialist, impromptu, interview
Views: 2750
Comments: 488

Had an intesting conversation with a man I have known for about 5 months. He delivers to my store, handles alot of cash and is a "straight up" kind of guy. I like him, and I am sure his employer does as well. A steady Eddie man, the kind that makes the country run.

We somehow got talking about the ME, and he mentioned he had been to Egypt, and really did not care for any of it. I asked him how it was that he found himself in the ME and he said he was in the service of the military.

Naturally I wanted to know in what type of service he was in. Well, he was drafted into 'Nam, and did twentyfour years, and tanks were his thing. He started out in a tank designation I did not know of. I know a little about M1A1' and wanted to know some things about them, and the man was very evidently the real deal, no swagger, no he man stories etc. He is who he claims.

After some talk of tactics, guns, how to disable an M1A1, exploding armor, all of which he had the knolwedge of a solider who had spent many years with this type of equipment. He was pretty high up in the system.

Then I asked him about DU. Well turns out he was one of the men on the ground testing it at Aburdeen Proving grounds, shooting various things, like mounds of earth, then digging into it to estimate the ballistics, etc.

Did this many time, and my friend related that one time a DU projectile fragmented into the mound of earth. They were to go dig all the pieces of the remenents out. As he tells me, there was a hole that one of the fragments had made, and as they were poking around, a field mouse was scared up and scampered into that hole made by a fragment.

He just sat back and waited for it to come out-; it didn't. After a few minutes, he saw that it was dead.

He went and got the General of the testing operation, and showed him what he had discovered. The General and his men looked at the situation and told all the testers to go away. For three weeks the site was closed, except to the investigators.

Three weeks later, the investigation was complete. The report said the mouse died of "starvation". My friend looked at me, eye to eye, and laughed. "That mouse damn sure didn't die of starvation", he said emphatically.

He said when the DU rounds hit a tank, he could "see a mushroom cloud", formed (Note, alot of high intensity heat will form a mushroom cloud event).

He said "if you take a giger counter into one of the tanks with DU munitions it will beep like crazy". He said that the explosiom of a DU round into steel was" basically a miniature explosion of a nuclear bomb".

He said they would put goats in the test tanks, and around them. He stated that " for twentyfive meters around the tank, hit by a DU round, all the goats would be dead, ten meters, mangled, turned inside out".

He believed DU dust to be alot more dangerous than the military was allowing.

This man is much more creadible, to me, much more, than the talking hairdoo's reading spin points from the Pentagon.

Draw your own conclusions, this is what I heard today, from a man with incontrovertable creadibility with me. He was there.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-176) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#177. To: Aric2000 (#175)

DU has Uranium in it, and therefore it must be radioactive, and therefore it MUST be dangerous...

Do you have special glasses that allow you see whatever you believe you see? Most of this thread is about toxicity from inhalation.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   17:55:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: Aric2000 (#175)

Nice try at spin. Nobody has indicated that DU is a hazard due to external radiological exposure. However, the evidence is overwhelming that it IS a hazard when taken internally, either as a radiological hazard as it accumulates in specific organs, or as a chemical hazard as it passes through the kidneys. Furthermore, all of the government studies are carefully controlled so as to evaluate only very carefully manufactured samples. Problem is, the bulk manufacturing of DU ammunition is not so controlled. Many other isotopes besides pure DU end up in the penetrators.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:58:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: Kyle (#169)

Sad that I'm an educated person who thinks for themselves and not a conspiracy theorist crank?

well.. I won't address this statement but thats not what came to mind at all.. I was thinking the adage 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' may have some validity..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   18:02:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: Zipporah (#179)

I was thinking the adage 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' may have some validity..

Hey, wait...wait... That isn't really true. Old dogs just take their time and get everything done in a thorough and efficient manner.

As for anyone being an "educated person," there are such things as educated jackasses.

Don  posted on  2005-04-28   18:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: Don (#180)

Hey, wait...wait... That isn't really true. Old dogs just take their time and get everything done in a thorough and efficient manner.

As for anyone being an "educated person," there are such things as educated jackasses.

I did say 'some validity'.. there is also an adage about being educated beyond reason..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   18:27:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: Zipporah (#181)

there is also an adage about being educated beyond reason..

There are people who have been educated beyond their reason.

Don  posted on  2005-04-28   18:29:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: Don (#182)

There are people who have been educated beyond their reason.

Obviously :P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   18:35:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#174)

I'd like to see Kyle tell us how Agent Orange got a bad rap, too.

Did he run away?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   18:44:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: Jethro Tull (#170)

The "toxic effect" on the cells is what it is. Your comical defense of these imperialists is a typical 'bot response.

Blather on. I have posted sound, peer-reviewed science from the world over that says that the amount of uranium in the surface soil in the area of a large battle using DU rounds was increased 1%. You guys just ignore everything that doesn't fit w/ the CT rant.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:01:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: Jhoffa_ (#171)

I did.. It's a hazard. The Navy's own document (AFTER an FOIA, I might add..) says so.

Jethro did. Nuke'em did. (Repeatedly)

All you seem to be able to do is cry "crackpot" when confronted with anything contrary to your view on Depleted Uranium.

Ya know, to turn this around a bit.. When you see admissions from the Government & the Military themselves, some of which would apply anywhere but a military setting, it makes your information look like 100% pure kookery.

The MSDS as similar items say the obvious - there is SOME potential for hazard. Nobody denies that. You are intentionally blurring the issue. The issue is if the hazard is significant and what evidence is there that vets or local populations have suffered from DU. The solid science says that the hazrd is insignificant and that there is little to no evidence of actual DU injury.

The crackpots are crackpots. They aren't that difficult to spot. Why do you prefer the crackpots and dismiss the real science?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:07:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#187. To: Kyle (#186)

    The MSDS as similar items say the obvious - there is SOME potential for hazard. Nobody denies that.

Exactly.. I completely believe there is a risk.

Burning DU has been cited as dangerous, as has pulverizing it..

Look, ignore static tests and bricks comprised of the stuff.. think about the mechanics of this for a minute.

If you ask me about riding in an airplane which utilizes DU as a balance weight, I'd say it's probably fine. Inhalation/ingestion however is dangerous to proven some degree. It's obviously more dangerous with repeated exposure.

We're putting these things in tanks, where they rattle around and bump and bounce before ramming them in gun barrels and blasting them on the bottom with high explosives.. they then arc through the air and hit something and try to smash it to bits..

Kyle, if there's not some DU aerosol being created here, I'll kiss your foot.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   19:14:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#188. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Aric2000 (#178)

However, the evidence is overwhelming that it IS a hazard when taken internally, either as a radiological hazard as it accumulates in specific organs, or as a chemical hazard as it passes through the kidneys.

I posted multiple impeccable sources to the contrary. Why do you ignore them?

Furthermore, all of the government studies are carefully controlled so as to evaluate only very carefully manufactured samples.

What aboout the non-gov't studies and all the foreign studies and the studies of ACTUAL exposure on the battlefield? Didn't read those either?

Problem is, the bulk manufacturing of DU ammunition is not so controlled. Many other isotopes besides pure DU end up in the penetrators.

Already dealt with as well. I guess you didn't read that either. DU is produced while enriching U235. It is done via the uranium hexafluoride gas centrifuge method. As previously described, virtually nothing but U238 and residual U235 can get through. The Pu content is in parts per billion. Any amounts of radioactive U decay products are exceedingly small even if the DU is fairly old because nearly all of the U is U238 and it has a half-life of 4.5 BILLION YEARS!

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:16:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#189. To: Jethro Tull, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Don, Zipporah (#184)

Did he run away?

ROTFL!!

No. I drove home from work. Now I'm going to eat dinner. I know it's hard for you guys to relate to people w/ jobs and lives. Far from running, I feel that I have made my points sufficiently well that any rational lurker would see the truth. You guys have long since stopped trying to defend your CT and psuedoscientific crap and never really attempted to refute the hard science. All you've got left is talking about me behind my back to buck each other up. So long losers.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:22:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#190. To: Jhoffa_ (#187)

Kyle, if there's not some DU aerosol being created here, I'll kiss your foot.

Of course there is. The question is to what effect. Early in this thread I posted numerous links to hard science that says that the risk is STILL minimal. Go back and read them.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:24:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#191. To: Kyle (#189)

I know it's hard for you guys to relate to people w/ jobs and lives.

So not true

It's hard for us to relate to *you* with a job and a life.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   19:39:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#192. To: Kyle (#190)

    Of course there is. The question is to what effect.

And that's a good question..

The guy's outside the military who come in contact with the stuff are being treated differently than the people behind the breach of the weapons firing it.

Like I said, they'd destroy your clothes and scrub you down in one scenario.. In another, you'd get to share a confined space with these aersol's

?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   19:45:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#193. To: Kyle, All (#189)

You guys have long since stopped trying to defend your CT and psuedoscientific crap and never really attempted to refute the hard science. All you've got left is talking about me behind my back to buck each other up. So long losers.

BushBots have this common failing. They are a legend in their own mind.

Don  posted on  2005-04-28   19:50:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#194. To: Kyle (#190)

Makes one proud, doesn't it warmonger?

Soldier wins fight with Army over Gulf War illness; Tribunal rules contaminated shells were to blame.

The Daily Mail (London, England)

The Daily Mail (London, England); 2/4/2004

Byline: STEVEN HENRY

A FORMER soldier who claimed he was poisoned during the first Gulf War has won a victory against the Army.

Kenny Duncan, 34 , claimed he was contaminated by depleted uranium from exploded shells while serving as a specialist tank transporter in 1991.

The Ministry of Defence has refused to recognise that Gulf War veterans may suffer illness from so called 'tank-buster' shells, despite testing Kosovo and Bosnia veterans for effects of the radioactive substance.

However, Mr Duncan has just became the first veteran to win a war pension appeal after taking the MoD t o the Pension Appeal Tribunal Service.

The tribunal in Edinburgh found that Mr Duncan's exposure to the cancer- causing uranium could be attributed to his service in the Gulf.

Mr Duncan, a father of three from Clackmannan, said: 'It has been a long, hard fight but it has been worth it.

'Hopefully this will open up the door for other veterans to push forward. It brings the issue into the public eye, closer to the public inquiry that we all want.' His wife Mandy, 36, added: 'We're ecstatic. Shocked really.

It's a landmark recognition for depleted uranium sufferers.' Mr Duncan, who now works as a lorry driver, believes he inhaled the deadly dust while recovering tanks in Iraq as part of the Royal Corps of Transport.

Part of his job was to move Iraqi tanks destroyed by depleted uranium shells.

In the years following his return from the Gulf he claims his children, Kenneth, ten, Andrew, eight, and sixyearold Heather were born with deformed toes and other health problems.

Mr Duncan suffers joint pain, breathlessness and coughs up blood - all symptoms of depleted uranium poisoning.

Mr and Mrs Duncan believe the conditions he and his children suffer were caused by his exposure to depleted uranium.

The couple also hope the ruling will lead to an increase in his war pension, which currently stands at 50 per cent of his former salary.

Roy Gibson, who represented Mr Duncan in the appeal hearing, read from the judgment, which said: 'In our opinion, the appellant has succeeded in showing a reasonable doubt in this case and therefore the appeal succeeds.' The lawyer added: 'I am ecstatic. We have fought a number of depleted uranium cases and this is the first we have won.' Shaun Rusling, chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said the tribunal's verdict added to its call for a full public inquiry into Gulf War illnesses.

He said: 'The finding by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal was absolutely tremendous and extremely significant for Kenny Duncan.

' It proves that his ill health was due to depleted uranium poisoning and it is great news for Kenny and his wife to at long last have his condition recognised.

'The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association is extremely pleased that justice has been done.' According to the association, 606 Gulf servicemen have died from ill health and a further 5,933 have applied for a war pension due to disablement.

A spokesman for the MoD said: 'Once we have received the written decision by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, we will consider any implications this may have for the Ministry of Defence.'

A key military element

DEPLETED uranium is a critical element on the modern battlefield, with uses both in attack and defence.

It is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead.

When used in ammunition, this helps the shell punch through enemy armour.

When munitions made with DU strike a solid object, such as the side of a tank, the round penetrates the armour and hot metal fragments from it scatter inside the vehicle, causing injury to the crew and damage to the vehicle. In Desert Storm, the British Army fired 88 DU rounds, but the Americans used it much more extensively.

DU is itself radioactive, but its density makes it ideal for use in armour plating.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the armour on American M1-A1 Abrams tanks received a number of direct hits from Iraqi shells that did not penetrate, thanks to DU.

When a DU round impacts, the material can be vapourised and can contaminate the wreckage.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   19:53:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#195. To: Kyle (#189)

All you've got left is talking about me behind my back to buck each other up.

A little paranoid there are we cookie? You know what Freud said about paranoia. Until now I thought he was just another homo-obsessed intellectual.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   19:59:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#196. To: Kyle, Aric2000 (#35)

If DU is so safe,why do workers at a DU shell plant don such protective clothing?

Arator  posted on  2005-04-28   20:04:57 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: Arator (#196)

It is a HEAVY metal, just like lead.

Workers that work with lead, that is cut, sanded, smoothed etc, use the SAME protective garments. Lead dust ingestion is MORE dangerous then DU, because Lead is taken readily by the body and will damage the brain, nervous system etc, compared to lead, DU, which is NOT readily taken in by the body, is safer to work with, MUCH safer....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   20:14:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#198. To: Aric2000 (#197)

Lead dust ingestion is MORE dangerous then DU, because Lead is taken readily by the body and will damage the brain, nervous system etc, compared to lead, DU, which is NOT readily taken in by the body, is safer to work with, MUCH safer....

The answer I've heard is that nobody knows. There is very little experience with DU and nobody really knows what damage results. There is hundreds of years of experience with lead and mercury and the effects are well documented. Hence, there are more documented problems with these materials, but that doesn't make DU necessarily safe. What is known is that all of the heavy metals from this group are harmful.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   20:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#199. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#178)

As I said before, and I will say again, DU is LESS dangerous then lead...

I would MUCH rather be shooting DU out of the barrel of a gun then lead, the powder and residue of lead is MUCH more dangerous when breathed in or touched then DU will EVER be.

DU is a heavy metal, of course there is a danger, but the danger is less then lead.

If you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   20:23:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#200. To: Aric2000 (#199)

Is someone shooting lead through your tent? That's crazy talk!

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   20:27:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#201. To: Dakmar (#200)

crazy talk!

I personally think we're witnessing a propaganda campaign of powerful proportions.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   20:29:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#202. To: Red Jones (#201)

I personally think we're witnessing a propaganda campaign of powerful proportions.

Why, are you convinced that Kyle/Aric are right?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   20:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#203. To: Dakmar (#200)

What do you mean? Crazy talk?

DU is not readily taken in by the body, it will pass out of the body if breathed, in swallowed etc, with little if ANY ill effects, BUT the same amount of lead will do FAR more serious damage, and lead vaporizes FAR more then DU does when it impacts.

The physiological danger from lead is FAR and away more then any physiological damage that might occur with DU.

Why is that crazy?, I have NO idea, because unlike you guys and your freaking out about DU, I have actually worked with the munitions, and M-1's etc, and am fully cognizant of any and all dangers of DU, and I am telling you that lead is FAR more dangerous then DU will EVER be...

And again, OF course there is a danger, it is a heavy metal, but this whole thread has blown it way out of proportion to the actual danger.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   20:34:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#204. To: Dakmar (#202)

are you convinced that Kyle/Aric are right?

no, the opposite.

I think some who are arguing with Kyle/bush-bots are doing so in good faith. they've fallen victim to horrible and evil propaganda.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   20:35:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#205. To: Aric2000 (#203)

DU is not readily taken in by the body, it will pass out of the body if breathed, in swallowed etc, with little if ANY ill effects, BUT the same amount of lead will do FAR more serious damage, and lead vaporizes FAR more then DU does when it impacts.

The physiological danger from lead is FAR and away more then any physiological damage that might occur with DU.

Why is that crazy?, I have NO idea, because unlike you guys and your freaking out about DU,

freaking out.....me?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   20:36:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#206. To: Red Jones (#201)

I personally think we're witnessing a propaganda campaign of powerful proportions.

If true, they are overpaid.

It only takes 10 minutes to read and understand the facts from a reputable source.
I've watched coworkers and family read and understand immediately. People of differing ages, politics and religions.

The denials from the propaganda campaign will only buy the Regime a little more time.

robin  posted on  2005-04-28   20:38:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#207. To: Aric2000 (#199)

DU is LESS dangerous then lead

But how do you know this? It's only been used since the 1970s. It sometimes takes that long for the effects to manefest. Not that many people have been exposed so there is not a good sample to study. Detailed studies of the problem have just started in the past few years. This is no time at all for a problem such as this. How long did it take to determine that cigarettes were dangerous?

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   20:39:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#208. To: Aric2000 (#203)

DU is not readily taken in by the body, it will pass out of the body if breathed, in swallowed etc, with little if ANY ill effects ...

I don't beleive this. Are you suggesting that people have ingested measured amounts of DU and the levels in the body have been measured?

If you're talking about some quicky studies using approximated data, the results arn't necssarily accurate. We had a client who pumped out these studies for the bio work in San Antonio. The results provide data to publications like Janes to support the status quo, but they don't constitute serious research.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   20:45:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#209. To: crack monkey (#208)

OK, so, are you worried about lead then as well?

Does this mean that you also support the military taking lead out of their bullets as well?

If not, because it would be stupid, then your freaking out about DU is just as stupid.

We have had DU for over 50 years, experimented with it, worked with it, etc.

MANY experiments have been done on it.

It is DENSER then lead, therefore it is BETTER for the military.

I will repeat it again, and again, and again, DU is SAFER then lead, because it is NOT readily absorbed into the body as lead is.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   21:15:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#210. To: Aric2000 (#199)

DU is a heavy metal, of course there is a danger, but the danger is less then lead.

If you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well.

I haven't seen any studies showing our troops heavily contaminated with lead while there is ample evidence that they are loaded up with internal DU contamination at levels far beyond what the "studies" projected was possible.

Nevertheless, I'm much less worried about DU than I am another substance that we are now commonly using - namely NON-Depleted Uranium in the bunker buster bombs.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#211. To: crack monkey (#207)

But how do you know this? It's only been used since the 1970s. It sometimes takes that long for the effects to manefest. Not that many people have been exposed so there is not a good sample to study. Detailed studies of the problem have just started in the past few years. This is no time at all for a problem such as this. How long did it take to determine that cigarettes were dangerous?

And the places where we've used it heavily are still heavily laden with political baggage that prevents meaningful study of the effect on the local populations.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:25:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#212. To: Aric2000 (#209)

    Does this mean that you also support the military taking lead out of their bullets as well?

    If not, because it would be stupid, then your freaking out about DU is just as stupid.

Hey, assface.. Just because Lead is dangerous doesn't mean Du isn't or that our servicemen don't require protection from either.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#213. To: Aric2000 (#209)

My gosh you're a fucking moron..

Which would you prefer I burn you to death with? Gasoline or alcohol?

Both are flammable, but the BUT's differ.

God you're a dope.. Please go crawl back between your mothers legs and spare us the rest of your "arguement"

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:28:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#214. To: Aric2000 (#209)

I will repeat it again, and again, and again, DU is SAFER then lead, because it is NOT readily absorbed into the body as lead is.

That's very interesting. I'm sure the health physics techs at the plant will be very interested in your super scientific expose - considering that they are still wearing lead aprons to shield them from the effects of uranium. Doh!

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#215. To: Jhoffa_ (#213)

Which would you prefer I burn you to death with? Gasoline or alcohol?

Next he'll be telling us that DU is safe because bullet primers have mercury in them and it is bad for you.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:32:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#216. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#211)

And the places where we've used it heavily are still heavily laden with political baggage that prevents meaningful study of the effect on the local populations.

Also, as I said above, it was originally used as a long range tank killer round. As you probably know, it's a long needle looking thing inside a sabot that falls off after leaving the barrel. The sabot increases the diameter so that it fits in the gun barrel. After leaving the barrel, the very heavy needle travels better through the air. Hence longer range and more punch for killing tanks.

I don't see why we even need it in Iraq. We're not having long range tank battles with heavy Russian tanks there. I would feel different if there was some critical need for the round - but this doesn't seem to be the case.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   21:32:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#217. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#215)

It's statistically safer to shoot yourself in the face with a a .22 than a shotgun slug.

Therefore, it is safe to shoot yourself in the face with a .22

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:34:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (218 - 488) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest