And now, the war in Uganda?

Our good-hearted but usually doomed attempt to right the world’s wrongs by sending in American troops to battle bad guys continues, as we send in the American military to central Africa:

President Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of up to 100 combat-equipped U.S. troops to central Africa to help hunt down the leaders of a rebel force known as the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army during a meeting with a delegation of officials and lawmakers from northern Uganda in 2006.

A senior administration official said 12 troops have been deployed so far under what he called a training mission aimed at helping African forces find and kill Joseph Kony, the fugitive head of the rebels.

The U.S. forces will deploy to Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

“Although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense,” Mr. Obama said in a letter to Congress released Friday.

The U.S. deployment will include special operations forces, defense officials said. Pentagon officials noted that U.S. forces are routinely deployed to Africa for training missions.

The Lord’s Resistance Army is believed to have killed, kidnapped and mutilated tens of thousands of civilians since the 1990s. Military officials said they believed Mr. Kony, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, and other top LRA leaders are currently hiding the Central African Republic.

via U.S. Deploys Troops in Pursuit of African Rebels – WSJ.com.

Is this liberal foreign policy?  Isn’t this neo-conservative?  Like what President Bush did?  Maybe Republicans should just vote for Obama as the most Bush-like of all alternatives.

Certainly, one can make a case for neo-conservative military interventions to support America’s moral principles.   Do you think this new military engagement is a good idea?  Or are 100 soldiers too few to constitute a military initiative?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    How many Marines did we send to Liberia?

    This is a very small number to be significant militarily, but it could be the pretext to a policy of repeated interventions on the African continent.

  • SKPeterson

    How many Marines did we send to Liberia?

    This is a very small number to be significant militarily, but it could be the pretext to a policy of repeated interventions on the African continent.

  • http://LeitersburgLutheran.org Terry Culler

    I have always leaned to John Quicy Adams argument that America wishes all freedom loving people well, but stands as the guarantor of its own freedom only. I fear that being the world’s policeman seems to be a failure and only leads to more deaths than would have taken place.

    I am 63 years old and the US has had somebody fighting somewhere virtually every year of my life, and frankly I’m getting a little tired of it. I spent two years of my youth in Viet Nam where 50000 Americans died for nothing, not to mention who knows how many Vietnamese, Laos, Koreans, Australiens and others. If this worked I might have a harder time convincing others that it’s a bad idea, but frankly we ought to see that it doesn’t work and try others ways–maybe what we ought to try is Jesus.

  • http://LeitersburgLutheran.org Terry Culler

    I have always leaned to John Quicy Adams argument that America wishes all freedom loving people well, but stands as the guarantor of its own freedom only. I fear that being the world’s policeman seems to be a failure and only leads to more deaths than would have taken place.

    I am 63 years old and the US has had somebody fighting somewhere virtually every year of my life, and frankly I’m getting a little tired of it. I spent two years of my youth in Viet Nam where 50000 Americans died for nothing, not to mention who knows how many Vietnamese, Laos, Koreans, Australiens and others. If this worked I might have a harder time convincing others that it’s a bad idea, but frankly we ought to see that it doesn’t work and try others ways–maybe what we ought to try is Jesus.

  • Tom Hering

    “… Viet Nam where 50000 Americans died for nothing …”

    Hit the dirt, Pastor Culler. Incoming! :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “… Viet Nam where 50000 Americans died for nothing …”

    Hit the dirt, Pastor Culler. Incoming! :-D

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I think we can all make the mistake of confusing moral ideals with lawful policy here. Even if our boys saved hundreds of lives that doesn’t make this a sound choice. The repercussions and legal precedent must be evaluated as well. And you’re right, Obama is one of the great neo-cons of this century.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I think we can all make the mistake of confusing moral ideals with lawful policy here. Even if our boys saved hundreds of lives that doesn’t make this a sound choice. The repercussions and legal precedent must be evaluated as well. And you’re right, Obama is one of the great neo-cons of this century.

  • Michael

    “Isn’t this neo-conservative? Like what President Bush did?”

    Regardless of one’s feelings on the Iraq war and US foreign policy in general, to draw a comparison between Obama sending a couple hundred troops to Uganda and Bush’s invasion of Iraq is just downright ludicrous.

  • Michael

    “Isn’t this neo-conservative? Like what President Bush did?”

    Regardless of one’s feelings on the Iraq war and US foreign policy in general, to draw a comparison between Obama sending a couple hundred troops to Uganda and Bush’s invasion of Iraq is just downright ludicrous.

  • Dan Kempin

    SK,

    “How many Marines did we send to Liberia?”

    I’m impressed that someone knows the history of Liberia. A salient point.

    What troubles me is the rumor that I heard (no, I do not know) that this “LRA” army was an effort of Christians to resist the muslims in southern Sudan. That would make this a very interesting choice for intervention.

  • Dan Kempin

    SK,

    “How many Marines did we send to Liberia?”

    I’m impressed that someone knows the history of Liberia. A salient point.

    What troubles me is the rumor that I heard (no, I do not know) that this “LRA” army was an effort of Christians to resist the muslims in southern Sudan. That would make this a very interesting choice for intervention.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael@5: You’re right. Let’s talk instead about his extensive “troop surges” in Afghanistan. And his general trend of global intervention–in Libya and elsewhere–makes it difficult to distinguish his foreign policy from that of his predecessor. In matter of foreign policy, Obama is a genetically pure neoconservative.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael@5: You’re right. Let’s talk instead about his extensive “troop surges” in Afghanistan. And his general trend of global intervention–in Libya and elsewhere–makes it difficult to distinguish his foreign policy from that of his predecessor. In matter of foreign policy, Obama is a genetically pure neoconservative.

  • SKPeterson

    Dan @6 –

    I think the anti-Muslim rationale for the LRA is largely spurious. That may have come up as additional justification for the LRA’s actions in central Africa, but they’ve been primarily a Ugandan criminal gang writ large. They have a “prophet” in Kony and a drug-driven, bloodthirsty willingness to do his bidding – the closest I can come up with in an American context would be Charles Manson heading up a New Apostolic Reformation “insurgency” – the Christian talk masks an overwhelming tendency to engage in actions of sociopathic bloodletting.

  • SKPeterson

    Dan @6 –

    I think the anti-Muslim rationale for the LRA is largely spurious. That may have come up as additional justification for the LRA’s actions in central Africa, but they’ve been primarily a Ugandan criminal gang writ large. They have a “prophet” in Kony and a drug-driven, bloodthirsty willingness to do his bidding – the closest I can come up with in an American context would be Charles Manson heading up a New Apostolic Reformation “insurgency” – the Christian talk masks an overwhelming tendency to engage in actions of sociopathic bloodletting.

  • Kirk

    @ Dan

    A few things:

    First, the LRA is Ugandan, not Sudanese.

    Second, the LRA, for a time, was funded and armed by Khartoum (a Muslim government) in an effort to destabilize S. Sudan through cross border raids

    Third, the LRA is a criminal gang under the auspices of an Apocalyptic Christian cult, supposedly informed by the Ten Commandments and lead by Joe Kony who claims to be a prophet

    Fourth, they are a gang of brutal killers. They raid defenseless villages across central Africa, killing the males, raping the females, abducting and enlisting the boys and taking the girls as concubines. Those they allow to live, they maim, typically cutting off noses and lips. The mere rumor that the LRA is in the area is enough to cause thousands to flee their homes and head for urban areas.

    They are not Christians. They do not have a stated political agenda aside from “fighting for the ten commandments.” There’s no element of self-defense.

    Wise or un-wise, this intervention isn’t Obama propagating his secret Muslim agenda.

  • Kirk

    @ Dan

    A few things:

    First, the LRA is Ugandan, not Sudanese.

    Second, the LRA, for a time, was funded and armed by Khartoum (a Muslim government) in an effort to destabilize S. Sudan through cross border raids

    Third, the LRA is a criminal gang under the auspices of an Apocalyptic Christian cult, supposedly informed by the Ten Commandments and lead by Joe Kony who claims to be a prophet

    Fourth, they are a gang of brutal killers. They raid defenseless villages across central Africa, killing the males, raping the females, abducting and enlisting the boys and taking the girls as concubines. Those they allow to live, they maim, typically cutting off noses and lips. The mere rumor that the LRA is in the area is enough to cause thousands to flee their homes and head for urban areas.

    They are not Christians. They do not have a stated political agenda aside from “fighting for the ten commandments.” There’s no element of self-defense.

    Wise or un-wise, this intervention isn’t Obama propagating his secret Muslim agenda.

  • Joe

    Obama is a classic neo-con, but that should not be a surprise. The foreign policy we call neo-conservative is an out growth of the 1930′s-40′s leftist – especially Troskyites.

    The Wikipedia page does a fair job in the describing the intellectual pedigree of neo-conservatism.

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

  • Joe

    Obama is a classic neo-con, but that should not be a surprise. The foreign policy we call neo-conservative is an out growth of the 1930′s-40′s leftist – especially Troskyites.

    The Wikipedia page does a fair job in the describing the intellectual pedigree of neo-conservatism.

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

  • Dan Kempin

    Kirk, #9,

    “this intervention isn’t Obama propagating his secret Muslim agenda.”

    I don’t think I said that. (Which, by the way, how would you know?)

    I don’t know if your knowledge of the LRA is the product of regional knowledge and experience or the result of some quick internet research. I do not deny or justify the atrocities committed by this group. But as SK points out with his comment on Liberia, there is (heartbreakingly) no shortage of these gangs and atrocities in Africa, and there has been no shortage of opportunity for intervention. For quite some time.

    The “interesting” part, in my opinion, is the choice to intervene in this particular region, where we know that Muslim northern Sudan has over time attacked and oppressed–with no shortage of atrocities–the Christian population of southern Sudan.

    Perhaps the Obama administration is trying to stabilize the region for the fledgling government of newly independent southern Sudan. That, I think, would be a worthy goal.

    But it makes me nervous, not because I think president Obama has a “secret Muslim agenda,” but because (in my opinion) his administration has shown remarkable incompetence in diplomacy with Muslim governments. If, just to pose a hypothetical, there was diplomatic pressure from Muslim governments to subdue the LDA, this intervention could be seen in another light.

    All of which is to say that there is a massive level of ignorance here. How are we to judge this intervention when most of us (I include myself) had never heard of the “LRA” until the story broke? How can we wade in to support or to criticize the administration when we don’t understand the region or even, really, the goals of the administration?

  • Dan Kempin

    Kirk, #9,

    “this intervention isn’t Obama propagating his secret Muslim agenda.”

    I don’t think I said that. (Which, by the way, how would you know?)

    I don’t know if your knowledge of the LRA is the product of regional knowledge and experience or the result of some quick internet research. I do not deny or justify the atrocities committed by this group. But as SK points out with his comment on Liberia, there is (heartbreakingly) no shortage of these gangs and atrocities in Africa, and there has been no shortage of opportunity for intervention. For quite some time.

    The “interesting” part, in my opinion, is the choice to intervene in this particular region, where we know that Muslim northern Sudan has over time attacked and oppressed–with no shortage of atrocities–the Christian population of southern Sudan.

    Perhaps the Obama administration is trying to stabilize the region for the fledgling government of newly independent southern Sudan. That, I think, would be a worthy goal.

    But it makes me nervous, not because I think president Obama has a “secret Muslim agenda,” but because (in my opinion) his administration has shown remarkable incompetence in diplomacy with Muslim governments. If, just to pose a hypothetical, there was diplomatic pressure from Muslim governments to subdue the LDA, this intervention could be seen in another light.

    All of which is to say that there is a massive level of ignorance here. How are we to judge this intervention when most of us (I include myself) had never heard of the “LRA” until the story broke? How can we wade in to support or to criticize the administration when we don’t understand the region or even, really, the goals of the administration?

  • Dan Kempin

    http://www.independent.co.ug/the-last-word/the-last-word/4383-watch-out-south-sudan-independence

    Here is an interesting starting point from the Ugandan point of view.

  • Dan Kempin

    http://www.independent.co.ug/the-last-word/the-last-word/4383-watch-out-south-sudan-independence

    Here is an interesting starting point from the Ugandan point of view.

  • Dan Kempin

    I think it likely that President Obama is trying to stabilize the government of South Sudan. I sincerely hope that intent translates into reality.

  • Dan Kempin

    I think it likely that President Obama is trying to stabilize the government of South Sudan. I sincerely hope that intent translates into reality.

  • Michael

    @Cincinnatus@7
    “You’re right. Let’s talk instead about his extensive “troop surges” in Afghanistan.”

    That’s a far cry from starting the invasion itself.

  • Michael

    @Cincinnatus@7
    “You’re right. Let’s talk instead about his extensive “troop surges” in Afghanistan.”

    That’s a far cry from starting the invasion itself.

  • Kirk

    @Dan

    Ok, fair enough. It was uncharitable of me to assume you were suggesting that. My apologies.

    My familiarity with the LRA comes from having spent the last two years on the Sudan Desk at USAID. My analysis of the intervention (without making a qualitative judgement) is this: the Obama administration sees it as an easy win.

    Politically: The LRA is a small, non-ideological, localized gang (unlike in Liberia where gangs are more endemic) that is completely unjustified in is existence and operation. No one likes the LRA. Period. They have a disproportionate impact on displacements in N. Uganda and S. Sudan and, in addition to murdering, are stifling economic growth and causing general instability in the region. The Ugandans have invited the US to intervene and there’s broad political support within the region for our troops to be there. So that takes care of the political issue.

    Militarily: The LRA is a small, localized gang made up mostly of kidnapped children. They can muster 1000 or so soldiers and are untrained and undisciplined. The challenge isn’t defeating them in combat, it’s finding them in the first place. This is where the Ugandans have really struggled and where the US will provide the brunt of the assistance. It’s a bit different from Viet Nam because the LRA is a gang, not a political movement. Once you kill Joe Kony, the LRA ceases to exist as an organization. The LRA can hopefully be defeated without an American even firing a shot.

    Impact: eliminating the LRA serves to promote regional stability and engender good will in Uganda and S. Sudan. This is important because we’re constantly competing with the Chinese for influence in the region and defeating the LRA is a huge hearts and minds win for the US. Plus, it’s a tangible FP win to point to, which the administration could always use, and it placates interest groups in the US. If you can get all this from a (hopefully) short deployment of 100 troops, it makes political sense.

    That’s where I think the reasoning comes from. You can make arguments about whether or not it’s wise, but I think that’s what the administration is thinking.

  • Kirk

    @Dan

    Ok, fair enough. It was uncharitable of me to assume you were suggesting that. My apologies.

    My familiarity with the LRA comes from having spent the last two years on the Sudan Desk at USAID. My analysis of the intervention (without making a qualitative judgement) is this: the Obama administration sees it as an easy win.

    Politically: The LRA is a small, non-ideological, localized gang (unlike in Liberia where gangs are more endemic) that is completely unjustified in is existence and operation. No one likes the LRA. Period. They have a disproportionate impact on displacements in N. Uganda and S. Sudan and, in addition to murdering, are stifling economic growth and causing general instability in the region. The Ugandans have invited the US to intervene and there’s broad political support within the region for our troops to be there. So that takes care of the political issue.

    Militarily: The LRA is a small, localized gang made up mostly of kidnapped children. They can muster 1000 or so soldiers and are untrained and undisciplined. The challenge isn’t defeating them in combat, it’s finding them in the first place. This is where the Ugandans have really struggled and where the US will provide the brunt of the assistance. It’s a bit different from Viet Nam because the LRA is a gang, not a political movement. Once you kill Joe Kony, the LRA ceases to exist as an organization. The LRA can hopefully be defeated without an American even firing a shot.

    Impact: eliminating the LRA serves to promote regional stability and engender good will in Uganda and S. Sudan. This is important because we’re constantly competing with the Chinese for influence in the region and defeating the LRA is a huge hearts and minds win for the US. Plus, it’s a tangible FP win to point to, which the administration could always use, and it placates interest groups in the US. If you can get all this from a (hopefully) short deployment of 100 troops, it makes political sense.

    That’s where I think the reasoning comes from. You can make arguments about whether or not it’s wise, but I think that’s what the administration is thinking.

  • Joe

    Michael – you need to understand that Bush and Obama can both be wrong about foreign policy. So pointing to Bush and saying, “Bush was a warmonger” does not lead to the conclusion that Obama is not.

    Both Bush and Obama have a neo-con foreign policy. Love it or hate it, its reality. The size of the war/operation does not alter the philosophy that justifies it.

  • Joe

    Michael – you need to understand that Bush and Obama can both be wrong about foreign policy. So pointing to Bush and saying, “Bush was a warmonger” does not lead to the conclusion that Obama is not.

    Both Bush and Obama have a neo-con foreign policy. Love it or hate it, its reality. The size of the war/operation does not alter the philosophy that justifies it.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael@14: It’s also a far cry from his repeated promises to end nation-building and extraneous military commitments.

    Joe@16 is, in short, correct.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael@14: It’s also a far cry from his repeated promises to end nation-building and extraneous military commitments.

    Joe@16 is, in short, correct.

  • Dan Kempin

    Kirk, #15,

    I did not realize that you had such a connection to Sudan. Thank you for he good information.

    I have known some Nuer people from around Juba–Arabic speaking Christians–so my interest in this is not political or anti-Obama.

    And I have seen some unedited footage of Charles Taylor’s child soldiers in Liberia. It rends the heart and turns the stomach. I’m sure it is not much different with the LRA.

    Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

  • Dan Kempin

    Kirk, #15,

    I did not realize that you had such a connection to Sudan. Thank you for he good information.

    I have known some Nuer people from around Juba–Arabic speaking Christians–so my interest in this is not political or anti-Obama.

    And I have seen some unedited footage of Charles Taylor’s child soldiers in Liberia. It rends the heart and turns the stomach. I’m sure it is not much different with the LRA.

    Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

  • Steve

    Honestly, it’s a big deal about an intervention that–so far–is quite small. The 100 soldiers–no doubt from U.S. Special Forces, aka Green Berets–will be trainers and advisors, training Ugandan troops (and South Sudan’s troops as well, perhaps) to root out the LRA and Joseph Kony. We’ve been doing these kinds of interventions for decades (and all over the world), most of which garner little, if any, attention.

    In fact, it’s likely that it got attention because the White House wanted it to get attention (read: Obama needs an easy win, a show of strength, etc.). The LRA is in fact more than just a gang, as some have suggested. They’re not an army, but they’re brutal, semi-organized, armed, and willing to anything (as they drug themselves up on khat) for power. Still, they’re not the Republican Guard or the Libyan army.

    But as we Americans know, these so-called little jungle insurgencies have a tendency to take on lives of their own over time. Anything like this is always dangerous.

  • Steve

    Honestly, it’s a big deal about an intervention that–so far–is quite small. The 100 soldiers–no doubt from U.S. Special Forces, aka Green Berets–will be trainers and advisors, training Ugandan troops (and South Sudan’s troops as well, perhaps) to root out the LRA and Joseph Kony. We’ve been doing these kinds of interventions for decades (and all over the world), most of which garner little, if any, attention.

    In fact, it’s likely that it got attention because the White House wanted it to get attention (read: Obama needs an easy win, a show of strength, etc.). The LRA is in fact more than just a gang, as some have suggested. They’re not an army, but they’re brutal, semi-organized, armed, and willing to anything (as they drug themselves up on khat) for power. Still, they’re not the Republican Guard or the Libyan army.

    But as we Americans know, these so-called little jungle insurgencies have a tendency to take on lives of their own over time. Anything like this is always dangerous.

  • Joe

    yeah – why get worried yet. I mean its just some military trainers and advisers. What could go wrong …

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tcNpKGJFQ14/TZH5HGNlwnI/AAAAAAAABDQ/cK6KmeTVp3g/s1600/man+at+vietnam+wall.jpg

  • Joe

    yeah – why get worried yet. I mean its just some military trainers and advisers. What could go wrong …

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tcNpKGJFQ14/TZH5HGNlwnI/AAAAAAAABDQ/cK6KmeTVp3g/s1600/man+at+vietnam+wall.jpg

  • SKPeterson

    Kirk/Dan/Steve – My guess is much along Kirk’s excellent analysis above. I also think that Steve @19′s comment on how jungle insurgencies can suddenly spring into larger conflagrations is easily confirmed by the experience of Liberia and Sierra Leone (an area of Africa in which I am more familiar) and from my own conversations with people at State in the Humanitarian Affairs Unit. Their group has been exceedingly interested in the problems of human displacement not just in South Sudan, but also as a result of the conflict in Congo-Kinshasa (the old Zaire) which has displaced hundreds of thousands, if not more. Moreover, the LRA appears to be a quite mobile little outfit, so their potential to act as a destabilizing element throughout much of central Africa is also part of this, especially as this area appears to finally be on the mend. Hopefully, it will not be a part of the same old African story – commandeering the profits of natural resource exploitation to buy arms, poor to outright dysfunctional governance, rampant tribalism, and a willingness to repeat the above ad nauseum.

  • SKPeterson

    Kirk/Dan/Steve – My guess is much along Kirk’s excellent analysis above. I also think that Steve @19′s comment on how jungle insurgencies can suddenly spring into larger conflagrations is easily confirmed by the experience of Liberia and Sierra Leone (an area of Africa in which I am more familiar) and from my own conversations with people at State in the Humanitarian Affairs Unit. Their group has been exceedingly interested in the problems of human displacement not just in South Sudan, but also as a result of the conflict in Congo-Kinshasa (the old Zaire) which has displaced hundreds of thousands, if not more. Moreover, the LRA appears to be a quite mobile little outfit, so their potential to act as a destabilizing element throughout much of central Africa is also part of this, especially as this area appears to finally be on the mend. Hopefully, it will not be a part of the same old African story – commandeering the profits of natural resource exploitation to buy arms, poor to outright dysfunctional governance, rampant tribalism, and a willingness to repeat the above ad nauseum.

  • steve

    That’s a heck of a lot of territory for 100 men.

  • steve

    That’s a heck of a lot of territory for 100 men.

  • steve

    Interesting little video. Notice where some of the funding and weapons come from.

    http://www.lracrisistracker.com/media/video/who-lra

  • steve

    Interesting little video. Notice where some of the funding and weapons come from.

    http://www.lracrisistracker.com/media/video/who-lra

  • kerner

    Nice video, steve, but way too neocon.

    Seriously, I am always conflicted about situations like this. I really am not the fan of foreign adventures that I may seem to be, but it is difficult to see that kind of suffering and just stand by and let it happen.

    For a fictionalized account, see here:

    http://strangeherring.com/2011/10/01/a-strange-review-machine-gun-preacher/#comments

    with thanks to Anthony Sacramone.

  • kerner

    Nice video, steve, but way too neocon.

    Seriously, I am always conflicted about situations like this. I really am not the fan of foreign adventures that I may seem to be, but it is difficult to see that kind of suffering and just stand by and let it happen.

    For a fictionalized account, see here:

    http://strangeherring.com/2011/10/01/a-strange-review-machine-gun-preacher/#comments

    with thanks to Anthony Sacramone.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    What little I have read about LRA was from alternative type places that are uh, NSFV and politically radioactive.

    I am with Kerner, it is hard to ignore such horrible suffering unless you consider that maybe our involvement could actually make it worse. Turning a thousand casualty conflict into a ten thousand casualty conflict isn’t exactly helping.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    What little I have read about LRA was from alternative type places that are uh, NSFV and politically radioactive.

    I am with Kerner, it is hard to ignore such horrible suffering unless you consider that maybe our involvement could actually make it worse. Turning a thousand casualty conflict into a ten thousand casualty conflict isn’t exactly helping.

  • steve

    kerner, was that sarcasm?

  • steve

    kerner, was that sarcasm?

  • kerner

    steve:

    oh…a little.

  • kerner

    steve:

    oh…a little.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X