TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [268]
1
 2  3  4  5  6 ... 11

Does America really need projection power in this day and age?:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I find myself wondering "why stop with veteran's benefits and closing a few army bases"? What if the USA just went full-on pacifist and decommissioned our military down to nothing but a bare-bones self-defense force? Would it be so bad? I mean, just look at the long list of "ever present threats" that that article mentions - Iran and North Korea.

Last time I checked, those aren't exactly world powers, and one of them is a barely functioning regional power at best, the other a failure of a state. I don't see any big threats to American security outside of those two small powers, so why do we need the big guns anymore? We can always build more if, say, China gets more uppity, but right now the Chinese really just seem content to look after their own people, Russia is ready for diplomacy instead of militarism, and the rest of the world can go deal with its own problems.

So really, would pacifism be such a bad thing nowadays? Do we even need a huge military industrial complex?
 
Princess Ymir's knightess
Major bitching ensues. [lol]

 3 USAF713, Sun, 6th Nov '11 9:25:24 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
[up] [lol]

To answer the thread title, yes and no.

If I were the President tomorrow and had the extra powers to do so, this is what I'd do to draw down the military and shift it from an aggressive, neoconservative stance to a militarily isolationist stance, broadly speaking:

  • Nationalize the production of all military hardware in the US, period.
  • Disallow any organization that receives Federal tax dollars in any form from lobbying, period.
  • Sell most bases to the countries they're in, with deals to use said bases in emergencies.
  • Reduce global US Military presence to comparative near-zero, with offers of paid training deals with countries that still need help to become militarily self-sufficient.
  • Gradually reduce total hardware in the US Military, while replacing some percentage of what is (preferably) recycled with high-tech, ultramodern military equipment designed for a defensive-minded US Military.
  • To prevent having to cut personnel or pay and to prevent having troops just sitting, use the US Military as a sort of peace time job corps, in lieu of a civilian equivalent that Congress would never authorize.
  • Stop trying to get rid of all the nukes, and begin building again until we are comparable in number with whoever has the most nuclear weapons in the world or until we reach some preset number, if the person with the (possibly next) largest number of nuclear weapons doesn't have very many. Also, modernize nuclear weapons technology, so we're using bleeding edge warheads and delivery systems, and not second-rate garbage from the Cold War. A single nuke should be able to devastate any mid-sized country via multiple warheads, not just take out one city.
  • Work on proper missile shielding for the nation, so we don't need to worry as much about other people's nukes.
  • Start working more with the UN, so that we no longer have US-only foreign adventures. No matter how just a cause is, we don't touch it without substantial (and/or proportional) a NATO-backed UN force to work with.
  • ...I don't work with PMCs on principle, so I won't even bother doing anything but firing all of them and possibly prosecuting most of them for all the bullshit they do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

edited 6th Nov '11 9:26:29 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
Two words: Alien Invasion. You just never know when all of those nukes and tanks are gonna come in handy fending off the Martian hordes!tongue

edited 6th Nov '11 9:45:24 PM by SgtRicko

Finally uploaded myself an Avvie
Princess Ymir's knightess
I'm gonna vote for USAF.

[up] Also this!

 6 USAF713, Sun, 6th Nov '11 9:37:52 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
I'm gonna vote for USAF.

waii

Frankly, I see nukes as more valuable for power projection and defense than a real military.

Lets say Iran or North Korea, as the OP mentioned, decides to start shit.

Ok, Iran, you start shit. I can wipe out every one of your major cities with one or two missiles from the other side of the fucking planet and you can't do jackshit about it. Oh, and if you do manage to get a shot off back, I have missile shields now. Wait, you don't want to start shit anymore? I thought so.

Brinkmanship only works with little powers, though. Big players, like the EU, Russia, or China, would be better handled by diplomacy (ideally), or the threat of conventional force (worst-case scenario). That said, I'm not much of an aggressive foreign diplomacy person. Other people's business is their own business.

I'd draw down the military and start doing whatever it takes to fix the US's relationship with Britain (and the Commonwealth), the EU, and Latin America, as well as trying to run diplomatic and economic rings around China and its lackeys.

I don't need 11 supercarriers to do that, though I'll take a few hundred MIRV nuclear weapons to wave at North Korea for shits and giggles.

edited 6th Nov '11 9:38:24 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
 7 Tuefel Hunden IV, Sun, 6th Nov '11 9:43:48 PM from Hunting the Armor. Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Watchmen of the Apocalypse
So just to make sure we are on the same page. You are suggesting cutting vet benefits, which is already a collaslly bad idea. Especially considering what we just put a large segment of our military through I say we at least owe them their bennies.

I could agree to some cut backs and drive for the U.S. Military to be for protecting our turf and our turf only. But if we have to go on the attack we need to be able to do jus that. Project force. You can't cut too much of the military and have remain a effective force for defense.

If we built our Military around defense of the nation and it's territory specifically we would still have a fairly large military to begin with namely because the U.S. is a large nation.

The Navy and airforce might not need to be as large but the land forces would need to be possibly larger.

edited 6th Nov '11 9:45:53 PM by TuefelHundenIV

"Who watches the watchmen?"
 8 USAF713, Sun, 6th Nov '11 9:52:42 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
Not necessarily. I would, as a strategic-level planner, emphasize getting civilians and militas and the National Guard and stuff to all be well-readied in the (unlikely) event of an invasion.

Basically, I'd try to find any and every gun owner I could, and push them to have plans and get organized and basically make it a really strong cultural thing that the right to own a weapon comes with the responsibility of knowing not only how to defend yourself but also how to be useful and defend others in the event of a foreign attack.

The Navy and Air Force could be scaled down somewhat (say, ~6 large carriers instead of 11, for example), and focused on defense.

Really, I wouldn't worry so much about an invasion, in that situation. I would make it very clear, internationally, that an invasion of the United States = you get your shit nuked, period.

And leave us the fuck alone otherwise.

Such as it is, I think that would handle most of our budgetary concerns on that front. Oh, and leave soldiers' benefits the fuck alone, you dumb bastards (the politicians, not anybody here specifically).
I am now known as Flyboy.
I can see a few problems with that line of thought though.

I mean, just to begin with, say for instance America is invaded. The military is geared entirely towards defence, and successfully throws off the attack. Then what? The invading country can sit back and recover, because America lacks the forces to counterattack. This is assuming that they even attack directly in the first place, rather than by bombing or via submarine.

Also, nukes are hardly a replacement for troops and a good airforce. If America nukes a country, for a lot of the world they be the bad guys. It would be seen as a major escalation of force, and suicidally stupid to boot.

Maybe the America's military could afford to cut back a little, but not to the point of uselessness.
Dreamkeepers Prelude, check it out!
[up][up][up]Look, I appreciate their service and their sacrifice, but when the office of veteran's affairs is chewing up thirty percent of the military budget (more than we spend on federal law enforcement, energy security, homeland security, NASA, and the military's bureaucracy COMBINED), something has to give.

I think the solution is to go full-on Tesla here: put a Death Ray in every American city (and possibly our strong allies, like Japan and Europe) and a few more in orbit besides, so that no one could possibly land a military force on North American soil without getting burned to a crisp by Frickin' Laser Beams. We have the technology for this, with a little bit of development it could be a reality. You don't need huge standing armies when you can wipe them out with the artillery from orbit.

Also, we wouldn't need aircraft carriers, if someone would just build an atomic-powered flying fortresses powered with scramjets. These "freedom eagles" would never have to land, and we could build them big enough to carry whole legions of paratroopers around the planet in under an hour. And then its death from above.

edited 6th Nov '11 10:25:12 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

 
 11 Tuefel Hunden IV, Sun, 6th Nov '11 10:14:23 PM from Hunting the Armor. Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Watchmen of the Apocalypse
Your still going to have the expense of trying to make a civilian body capable of defending in a reliable way. They would be far from an effective defense force. The time, effort, and expenses needed to even try that you might as well have a active military component.

I would avoid waving the nuke stick or even using it. Convential war will always be prefrable to nuclear.
"Who watches the watchmen?"
 12 Mark Von Lewis, Sun, 6th Nov '11 11:02:36 PM from Somewhere in Time Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
KCCO
OP: I say yes we do. Pacifism is great and all, but it requires the other nations of the world share your philosophy. Our philosophy now prepares for when someone doesn't.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
> the office of veteran's affairs is chewing up thirty percent of the military budget (more than we spend on federal law enforcement, energy security, homeland security, NASA, and the military's bureaucracy COMBINED)

isn't this because Health Cost ? how many money on Veteran Affairs is spend on subsidizing hospital / health care ?

 14 Spooky Mask, Mon, 7th Nov '11 2:50:20 AM from Corner in round room Relationship Status: Non-Canon
Insert title
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah, nuke scare works as long nobody actually attacks tongue The actually using nukes makes pretty much everyone hate you.(plus, it would be pretty bad to kill a lot of civilians for actions of government + irradtion unless they are nukes which only kill people :P)
Time to change the style, for now
 15 Jeysie, Mon, 7th Nov '11 4:39:56 AM from Western Massachusetts
Diva of Virtual Death
I agree with much of USAF's ideas.

The thing to understand is, the US's military is something like five or more times as strong as the rest of the world. Even the most advanced military hardware the rest of the world has couldn't get within a hundred yards of our best stuff, let alone touch it. We're in overkill mode right now. (Not trying to brag, just, our military shit be crazy.)

So if we decommission our oldest stuff and bring ourselves up to one or two levels ahead across the board, then cut down to keeping ourselves at that smaller level R&D-wise, we'd still outclass everyone with a much smaller outlay.

edited 7th Nov '11 4:41:07 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
 16 FF Shinra, Mon, 7th Nov '11 6:07:54 AM from Ivalice, apparently Relationship Status: Too sexy for my shirt
Beware the Crazy Man.
[up] Not quite right. With the exception of one or two outliers (like the F-22), most everything the US makes has a Russian or European counterpart that can perform just as well, if not better in some cases.

@USAF: Disagree with you on the nukes thing.

@OP: I think we should reduce projection in Europe and South America and what little we have in Africa. Build our stuff to last rather than be awesome (which is mostly for awesome's sake, since it only rarely seems to translate into effectiveness) so that we don't have to spend as much constantly feeding the military-industrial beast (like with the F-35). Weapon designers should get perks rather than cash while being forced to compete with other designers on the free market (in essence, a hybrid between the US and former Soviet defence industries). As for benefits, I don't agree that they should be outright eliminated or thoughtlessly reduced, but yes something has to change with that too. What that might be, I don't know.
Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...
 17 Major Tom, Mon, 7th Nov '11 6:19:14 AM Relationship Status: Baby don't hurt me!
Eye'm the cutest!
What if the USA just went full-on pacifist and decommissioned our military down to nothing but a bare-bones self-defense force? Would it be so bad?

It would be the worst thing to happen to the world since the end of the First World War. (Fun fact, we were one of only three powers in the 1930s who could do something about Japan or Germany before it got out of hand. We chose not to until it slapped us in the face literally.)

Three main reasons why:

  • US deterrence factor is a MAJOR reason why there are fewer wars. Why start something petty if the world's biggest power can land 2 expeditionary forces of US Marines on your soil in 48-96 hours?
  • The US spans the globe literally in territory. We have possessions in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean (well within missile range of both China and North Korea to boot!), and all over North America. The only places we really don't belong that much are Africa and Europe. We need a large force capable of moving large amounts of firepower between anywhere within defensible range of our territory. A JSDF style military would be incapable of performing just that.
  • Do you really trust the Chinese to stand up for Human Rights? Do you trust the Russians to stand up for democratic movements? Do you trust the softies in Europe to do either when they barely could do Libya?

The world is not the proper place for us to stand down and mind our business. It might never be.
Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
 18 Jeysie, Mon, 7th Nov '11 7:20:04 AM from Western Massachusetts
Diva of Virtual Death
[up]

You act like the US actually stands up for human rights to begin with, as opposed to regularly propping up dictators and overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, and committing plenty of war crimes and oppressive tactics ourselves.

Let's be honest—the reality is that the US intercedes wherever is most profitable, not because we currently actually give a shit about human rights. We're not the world's Paladins by a loooooooooooong shot. So, you know, you act like I even trust the US to do any of the things you mentioned.

edited 7th Nov '11 7:21:05 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
 19 Greenmantle, Mon, 7th Nov '11 7:37:42 AM from New-Old Wessex Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
* Tsun *
[up]

In other words, you are saying that America acts in its self-interest First?

Guess What?

So does Every Other Nation.

It's practically the first Rule of Diplomacy.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" — Alfred, Lord Tennyson
 20 Oscredwin, Mon, 7th Nov '11 7:59:01 AM from The Frozen East
Cold.
You act like the US actually stands up for human rights to begin with, as opposed to regularly propping up dictators and overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, and committing plenty of war crimes and oppressive tactics ourselves.
Likely the best side effect of a one superpower world, is that there are fewer wars than any other political setup that has been tried. It doesn't matter what the policies of the superpower are. Assume the US government is pure, puppy kicking evil. We can only really fight 2-4 wars at any given time. Modern just war doctrine (which I think would be endorsed by this board) would not endorse any war that has ever actually happened. If the US goes around fighting 4 wars at any given time (and being Complete Monsters about it), and there are 1-2 other wars we can't be bothered with, that still puts the world a head and shoulders better off than any other system tried.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and do better still, but without the projection abilities of the US other nations would be much more proactive with their militaries.
Sex, Drugs, and Rationality
 21 Spooky Mask, Mon, 7th Nov '11 8:28:42 AM from Corner in round room Relationship Status: Non-Canon
Insert title
^^Doesn't mean every nation should.
Time to change the style, for now
It doesn't matter whether USA protects human rights abroad or doesn't (and generally it doesn't, I mean why try to condemn Syria while giving military assistance to Saudi troops gunning down protesters?)

The question is military projection power.

I generally agree with USAF except on nukes, but I'll explain my points anyway.

  • Bases allow quicker response time to world issues but what world issues? Unless America is invading other countries, it's rather pointless. But oh wait, it did invade other countries; specifically Iraq and Afghanistan. I think popular opinion of those wars has turned very sour, especially for Iraq. What was needed, if anything, was special forces to take down key leaders in Al Qaeda and after 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's exactly what took him out, not any US marines or mass floods of G Is.

  • A massive navy is great and all, but super carrier fleets don't exactly secure trade lanes in the waters. Just normal cruisers and frigates do just fine. But, the navy is the first thing used for aid work but what do they need? Mostly frigates. So you can scale back on carriers significantly without impacting those operations. Of course, an aircraft can be used for both aid and war, but you don't need 11 super carrier fleets.

  • Nuclear missiles are a deterrence weapon. Having 8000 active nuclear missiles with over 12000 warheads though, that's just called Dr. Doom level of weaponry. UK has a few hundred nukes. France has a few hundred nukes. China has a policy of maintaining only just enough nukes to level USA just in case, so barely a hundred. Russia still has thousands. So really, I would continue nuclear arms reduction deals with Russia to bring it to a more reasonable level.

  • The US military has ballooned to 3 million personnel. Do you know what other country has 3 million personnel? China. So let me just say it. That is too many soldiers. Stop recruiting and just focus on improving pay, conditions, medical/psychological support, vacation time and so on. That way, the extra money that comes in each year can be used to increase pay rather than pay for operations costs.

  • There's no need to cut veteran funding. They are already terribly short changed. The real solution is to stop creating so many veterans that cost so much money to upkeep via healthcare and psychological care costs (actually they don't even receive psychological care). If USA stops fighting major wars unilaterally, it won't incur so many broke ass veterans and it'll cost less. Combined with a recruitment freeze/drop, costs will go down over the next few decades. Look, this is a debt that has to be paid. You can't ask people to die/get maimed for your country and then go "well fuck you."

  • Cut military hardware purchases. It's fantastic and all to have F-35s except we haven't even used F-22s yet in combat. So what does that tell me? It's a big ass waste of money. First, cut off half the Weapons Acquisition Program. Secondly, nationalise those companies to make weapons. Third, cut off all PM Cs. Government military should be owned by the government to reduce corporate corruption and eliminate lobbying. I'm with USAF on this one.

  • USA needs to switch down around I think 2 to 2.5 million of its soldiers into part-time so that they can participate in the domestic economy. The money saved should be put toward a jobs program for the soldiers. And then I would increase part-time reservists, strategically spread out the number so that there's 3-4 million reservists in America, and half a million active soldiers.

As for the contention of "if we repel invaders, then what?" it's a silly idea. It's not a game of starcraft where I build a bunch of marines, send them at you, they die and then I just build more. Countries collapse off failed invasions. Besides, who is going to launch an attack against USA? They have to go over either the Pacific or the Atlantic. You can hold off such invasions forever and furthermore, it costs less. Because let me reverse the question, "You counterattack the invaders with a standing army you've been maintaining through all the decades for this one moment, then what?" Will you occupy the country and spend even more money? Will you level it and kill everybody and commit the worst crimes against humanity in history? All you can do is repel an invader and diplomatically diffuse the situation afterward. Plus you have to think of the cost of maintaining a huge military the entire time just waiting for this one hypothetical invasion.

Reduced funding to healthcare, education and so on costs real lives. What of medical procedures that could have saved people? Giving people medical insurance to improve their quality of life? Preventing poor people from dying from something as simple as tooth infections? Education to get people to be able to work better jobs and afford food/shelter?

 23 USAF713, Mon, 7th Nov '11 4:05:33 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
I can see a few problems with that line of thought though.

I mean, just to begin with, say for instance America is invaded. The military is geared entirely towards defence, and successfully throws off the attack. Then what? The invading country can sit back and recover, because America lacks the forces to counterattack. This is assuming that they even attack directly in the first place, rather than by bombing or via submarine.

Also, nukes are hardly a replacement for troops and a good airforce. If America nukes a country, for a lot of the world they be the bad guys. It would be seen as a major escalation of force, and suicidally stupid to boot.

Maybe the America's military could afford to cut back a little, but not to the point of uselessness.

  • 1) "Defensively minded" doesn't mean "never attack ever, at all." In the event of war, hell yes, go on the offensive. I'm just saying that we should not be invading other countries without due cause, period.
  • 2) We get into a serious war with anybody who poses a credible threat and we mobilize everything in the US and rape the shit out of them. "(Relatively) small standing army" does not translate to "that's all we'll use to fight any wars ever." Besides, I said we should keep six of the carriers. Most countries can't even field one. If somebody can honestly reach the US, and it isn't Canada or Mexico who have proximity advantage, we really kind of deserve to get conquered because we just suck ass at that point.

Your still going to have the expense of trying to make a civilian body capable of defending in a reliable way. They would be far from an effective defense force. The time, effort, and expenses needed to even try that you might as well have a active military component.

Well, of course, but think about it this way:

There are about 52 million American households that collectively possess about 260 million firearms.

Oh, and there's about 800, 000 trained and armed law enforcement personnel in the US, both State/local and Federal put together.

Really, the United States, even if most of its populace wasn't trained, is just about one of the most nightmarish places on Planet Earth to consider attacking directly. The "Second Amendment army" would rip any invading force to shreds simply by Death of a Thousand Cuts.

(And hell, that's not even including all the armed criminal groups who'd probably side with the US just because "better the devil you know.")

I would avoid waving the nuke stick or even using it. Convential war will always be prefrable to nuclear.

So would I. Waiving the nuclear big stick is reserved for profoundly stupid countries that may not see reason otherwise, like North Korea.

I say yes we do. Pacifism is great and all, but it requires the other nations of the world share your philosophy. Our philosophy now prepares for when someone doesn't.

Pacifism? Hardly. I'd be disappointed if the US Military couldn't effectively flatten anything and everything it touches. Point is, the world isn't our problem, so the US Military should do exactly what it was intended to do—defend this country—and nothing else, period.

Foreign adventures are the UN's concern. Would I support helping UN missions? Absolutely. But the days of unilateral American world police actions should go die in a fire.

The actually using nukes makes pretty much everyone hate you.(plus, it would be pretty bad to kill a lot of civilians for actions of government + irradtion unless they are nukes which only kill people :P)

You think I'm evil enough to immediately nuke an enemy and his civilians for attacking us?

Hardly. I'd tactical nuke the invading force itself. So, yes, you try and call that bet. Say hello to nuclear torpedoes/Davy Crockett tacnukes.

Disagree with you on the nukes thing.

In what way, specifically?

You act like the US actually stands up for human rights to begin with, as opposed to regularly propping up dictators and overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, and committing plenty of war crimes and oppressive tactics ourselves.

Let's be honest—the reality is that the US intercedes wherever is most profitable, not because we currently actually give a shit about human rights. We're not the world's Paladins by a loooooooooooong shot. So, you know, you act like I even trust the US to do any of the things you mentioned.

Thank you.

You know what, fuck this "defenders of democracy" shit. Nobody buys the propaganda garbage.

If I were President, I'd be very up front. I do business with people I vaguely like. Keep doing business with us and be honest, and I'll do the same. Maybe I'll eventually be willing to call you a friend and not "that guy who buys our shit but I don't really trust him all that much." If you're stupid and like to start shit with me, I won't do business with you. I'll take my toys and go to someone who will play fair.

And for fuck's sake, I would stop doing stupid shit (like tariffing Canada in spite of NAFTA) so people stop getting pissed at the US for goddamned idiotic reasons that need not exist.

In other words, you are saying that America acts in its self-interest First?

Guess What?

So does Every Other Nation.

It's practically the first Rule of Diplomacy.

Have a cookie.

What was needed, if anything, was special forces to take down key leaders in Al Qaeda and after 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's exactly what took him out, not any US marines or mass floods of GIs.

Exactly. Given a choice between "send Force Recon/Delta Force/the Green Berets/Navy SEALs/some combination thereof" and "throw the US Army, Navy, and Air Force at them, wholesale, " I'm going with the first option.

Of course, an aircraft can be used for both aid and war, but you don't need 11 super carrier fleets.

Exactly. We need six. Three for each ocean, and hell help you if you decide to fuck with us, because I'd be plenty happy to turn six carriers into twelve through mobilization before I level your navy.

@Number of nuclear weapons,

Ideally, we'd have, under my preferred conditions, somewhere between 750-2000 MIRV nuclear weapons. Enough to buttfuck China and Russia both at once, but not so many that we're just cartoon supervillains with doomsday devices.

Cut military hardware purchases. It's fantastic and all to have F-35s except we haven't even used F-22s yet in combat. So what does that tell me? It's a big ass waste of money. First, cut off half the Weapons Acquisition Program.

Well, we wouldn't need to entirely cut military hardware purchases. Just scale them back and start recycling old stuff, using the now-freed funds from that upkeep to help pay for the new shit. Stay on the bleeding edge of technological development, but don't have nearly so much stuff to being with.

edited 7th Nov '11 4:17:35 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
 24 Joesolo, Mon, 7th Nov '11 4:20:04 PM Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
We need it, yes. We can't just nuke our problems away. Current size is enogh, we could stand for less though.
"Why do you need guns that big?"

"Hitler had a very small penis. "

Le Garcon and Geek Code Red on a German artillery gun
 25 Deboss, Tue, 8th Nov '11 11:19:04 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
Exactly. We need six. Three for each ocean, and hell help you if you decide to fuck with us, because I'd be plenty happy to turn six carriers into twelve through mobilization before I level your navy.

No, two for each side plus two down for maintenance (people always forget that part). That's one for hugging the coast and one out at sea if you want.
Total posts: 268
1
 2  3  4  5  6 ... 11


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy