Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:22:05 PM EDT
Call me German, but several current situations would seem to beg for a VX based solution.  

Given that our enemies have them and will use them if we ever tangle for real, why do we want to deprive ourselves of the same option?

This thread inspired by the what if the oil fields fall thread.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Call me German, but several current situations would seem to beg for a VX based solution.  

Given that our enemies have them and will use them if we ever tangle for real, why do we want to deprive ourselves of the same option?

This thread inspired by the what if the oil fields fall thread.
View Quote


I wish we had kept our neutron bomb program personally.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Slime is bad.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I wish we had kept out neutron bomb program personally.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Call me German, but several current situations would seem to beg for a VX based solution.  

Given that our enemies have them and will use them if we ever tangle for real, why do we want to deprive ourselves of the same option?

This thread inspired by the what if the oil fields fall thread.


I wish we had kept out neutron bomb program personally.



Heh, my dad and I were just talking about that.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:51 PM EDT
[#4]
You think they're all gone? Cute.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:26:19 PM EDT
[#5]
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:26:55 PM EDT
[#6]
I think it had some thing to do with them leaking.

Not what you want to have to transport to a combat area.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:28:54 PM EDT
[#7]
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:30:54 PM EDT
[#8]
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better.  Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:31:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.
View Quote



 










Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:31:58 PM EDT
[#10]
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory.  even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects.  bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle.



but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:32:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.
View Quote

War is disgusting.  It'smade less so if it's SHORT.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:33:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better.  Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons.
View Quote

You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:33:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Who says they are gone? The government?
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:35:37 PM EDT
[#14]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better.  Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons.
View Quote




 
errr...no.  material destruction is inevitable with nuclear, and there are times when that is undesired.




on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:37:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

War is disgusting.  It'smade less so if it's SHORT.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.

War is disgusting.  It'smade less so if it's SHORT.

Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:39:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory.  even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects.  bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle.

but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i.
View Quote


Just wars are an oxymoron.  There is only survival and mission accomplishment.  Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use.  

I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:40:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.

War is disgusting.  It'smade less so if it's SHORT.

Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children.

Those images would make it to the enemy as well though, and to anyone else contemplating making a run at us.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:40:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Some good info.



VX Nerve Gas



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0





A good watch.



America's Nerve Gas Arsenal
 




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjA0EQPeUGM
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:45:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Those weapons destroyed in the ChemDemil program were 50 and 60 years old.  Some leaking.  It was tough enough moving then to propose built incinerators, can't imaging moving them to a theater of operations

Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:45:17 PM EDT
[#20]
CBRN weapons ain't gonna get used for any of this "police action" stuff we do these days.  


Against an existential threat?  Sure.  Against a bunch of stoneage douchebags running around IEDing each other? Not a fucking chance.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:46:28 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Just wars are an oxymoron.  There is only survival and mission accomplishment.  Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use.  

I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory.  even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects.  bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle.

but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i.


Just wars are an oxymoron.  There is only survival and mission accomplishment.  Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use.  

I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional.

It is a delusion you must engage in if you want the public to support you.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:47:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
CBRN weapons ain't gonna get used for any of this "police action" stuff we do these days.  


Against an existential threat?  Sure.  Against a bunch of stoneage douchebags running around IEDing each other? Not a fucking chance.
View Quote

That's a shame.  Nothing says STFU and quit acting the fool like watching your buddies do the kickin' chicken.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:48:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

It is a delusion you must engage in if you want the public to support you.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory.  even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects.  bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle.

but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i.


Just wars are an oxymoron.  There is only survival and mission accomplishment.  Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use.  

I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional.

It is a delusion you must engage in if you want the public to support you.



Best argument so far.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:53:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Those images would make it to the enemy as well though, and to anyone else contemplating making a run at us.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.

War is disgusting.  It'smade less so if it's SHORT.

Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children.

Those images would make it to the enemy as well though, and to anyone else contemplating making a run at us.

Have the images of the ones we've blown to shreds deterred anyone?
We don't have the backbone to fight a war where we actually treat the enemy the way they would treat us. If we did we still wouldn't need chemical weapons. The damage that could be done with conventional weapons used without restraint would be just as intimidating.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:55:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

That's a shame.  Nothing says STFU and quit acting the fool like watching your buddies do the kickin' chicken.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
CBRN weapons ain't gonna get used for any of this "police action" stuff we do these days.  


Against an existential threat?  Sure.  Against a bunch of stoneage douchebags running around IEDing each other? Not a fucking chance.

That's a shame.  Nothing says STFU and quit acting the fool like watching your buddies do the kickin' chicken.


Given that the whole shitshow in Iraq was ostensibly started over the manufacture of WMDs, I think that'd be a tough sell.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:58:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy.
View Quote


Like most theory, the devil is in the detail. So, while in the abstract, perhaps you're right. The reality is much more fuzzy.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:58:12 PM EDT
[#27]
It is more important to "win the hearts and minds" of our enemies than to look out for America's interest first. This is a must if we are to be a "Great Society".
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 1:59:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Those weapons destroyed in the ChemDemil program were 50 and 60 years old.  Some leaking.  It was tough enough moving then to propose built incinerators, can't imaging moving them to a theater of operations

View Quote


This..... those were more trouble than they were worth, considering the condition they were in.........
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:00:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge.
View Quote


And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:06:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.
View Quote

The problem with that theory is that the military publishes training manuals and has training courses for EVERYTHING.
A new bomb body just can't appear on a base and get loaded on planes (or shells for artillery, or tanks for helicopter spray) without everyone involved going through weeks of training, reading a new 500 page manual, etc, not to mention the months of testing it would have to go through. EOD and CBRN would need to be spun up on it for handling, safeing, disposal, etc. It would also be wargamed to death by leadership so that every platoon leader would know how to use it, when to call for it, etc.

True, the testing could be done covertly at a number of locations, but you can't train tens of thousands of Soldiers and Airmen without at least one of them spilling the beans.

Our chemical and biological stockpiles are gone, except for extremely limited (and treaty-verified) amounts produced for antidote, vaccine, detection, etc, R&D.

Kharn
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:06:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war.
View Quote


Yet they can be effective and bio war has been around since the beginning of time.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:07:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You think they're all gone? Cute.
View Quote


Ya. Dis.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:08:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge.


And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons.

This.  If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them.  The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive.  You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.)  What could possibly go wrong?
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:09:57 PM EDT
[#34]
For a country with an advanced chemical industry, they are damn simple to make in huge quantities.

Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:10:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

This.  If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them.  The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive.  You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.)  What could possibly go wrong?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge.


And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons.

This.  If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them.  The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive.  You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.)  What could possibly go wrong?


Honestly, I can't think of a single war since 1945 where Chem would have been truly usable, or when used, was a game-changer.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:11:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Yes I have pictures of the train when we dumped them in the ocean
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:12:04 PM EDT
[#37]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Just wars are an oxymoron.  There is only survival and mission accomplishment.  Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use.  



I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory.  even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects.  bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle.



but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i.





Just wars are an oxymoron.  There is only survival and mission accomplishment.  Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use.  



I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional.







 






so you're saying that from a moral point of view, germany's invasion of poland is equal to the american war for independence?




you're saying that there's no such thing as a moral justification for a nation to defend itself militarily?
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:13:01 PM EDT
[#38]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Like most theory, the devil is in the detail. So, while in the abstract, perhaps you're right. The reality is much more fuzzy.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy.





Like most theory, the devil is in the detail. So, while in the abstract, perhaps you're right. The reality is much more fuzzy.




 
completely agree.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:13:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Honestly, I can't think of a single war since 1945 where Chem would have been truly usable, or when used, was a game-changer.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge.


And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons.

This.  If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them.  The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive.  You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.)  What could possibly go wrong?


Honestly, I can't think of a single war since 1945 where Chem would have been truly usable, or when used, was a game-changer.



Everything since 1945 has been police action BS where we had vague goals, weak leadership, and an impossible political situation. Everyone was all gaga about Gulf War I and how well it went but fail to realize it went well because the U.S. military was let off the chain for the first time since '45, we had decent leadership, a workable  political situation in the region, and most importantly clearly stated attainable goals. Of course we stopped at 5 yard line and went home; so I don't think you can claim it as a complete success either.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:13:51 PM EDT
[#40]
I've gone through the Army's live nerve agent training at Ft. McClellan.  VX, Tabun, and Sarin.  Fun times I tell you. I even got a coffee cup, I paid for lol.

Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:17:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Everything since 1945 has been police action BS where we had vague goals, weak leadership, and an impossible political situation too.
View Quote


I'm talking ANY war, not just US wars.

We have all the things you mention because of nuclear weapons.

Now, I can think of one usage of chem that WAS a game changer, but it wasn't in wartime.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:17:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Call me German, but several current situations would seem to beg for a VX based solution.  

Given that our enemies have them and will use them if we ever tangle for real, why do we want to deprive ourselves of the same option?

This thread inspired by the what if the oil fields fall thread.
View Quote


I think we got rid of some old junk. Know what we will never get rid of? The formula to make this stuff.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:19:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I've gone through the Army's live nerve agent training at Ft. McClellan.  VX, Tabun, and Sarin.  Fun times I tell you. I even got a coffee cup, I paid for lol.

http://i.imgur.com/zHHVUjn.jpg
View Quote

The quotes around "live" make it .  

Kharn
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:20:14 PM EDT
[#44]
The US chemical munitions stockpiles are gone from all but two locations, Pueblo, CO and Lexington-Bluegrass, KY.  In those two locations environmental activists forced the military into pursuing non-incineration technologies that have not yet come online, despite decades of development.  In all that program is stupid. We can burn Syria's stockpiles safely, but not our own.

As to why we got rid of it, there are several aspects to that answer.

First, some of the weapons systems were actually a greater danger to our troops that the enemy. I speak of the M55 Sarin and VX rockets, which went whatever direction they wanted, not necessarily in the direction the rocket was launched.

Second, most of the weapons systems were old, and many warheads and 1-ton containers were leaking. Not a good idea for the guys storing, moving, or trying to use the stuff in combat.

Third, we didn't want people using chemical weapons against us, so we had a "no first use policy." That "no first use" eventually morphed into a "we'll nuke you in response if you do" policy.

Finally, there is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which the US signed up to in the 1990s.

All in all, our policy on chemical weapons makes better sense today.  We don't have any because they were unreliable, so if some dumbass like NORKOR decides to use them against our forces in a first strike, we (at least on paper) will retaliate using our one type of WMD that is reliable, nukes, for example our dial-a-yield W88 warheads.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:47:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better.  Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons.

You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes.


Until the wind switches direction and kills all your own troops.

Or you have an accident in storage/transport and kill your own troops.

Overall, they are just a shitty weapon.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:48:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You think they're all gone? Cute.
View Quote


+1
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:51:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  errr...no.  material destruction is inevitable with nuclear, and there are times when that is undesired.

on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better.  Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons.

  errr...no.  material destruction is inevitable with nuclear, and there are times when that is undesired.

on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy.


Hard to store, and hard to use.  Shitty weapons systems overall. Neutron atomics can do the same thing, but we decided those were "bad".
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:53:40 PM EDT
[#48]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better.  Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons.


You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes.
Russian policy is to respond to chemical weapons with nukes, last time I checked.

 
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:55:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Hard to store, and hard to use.  Shitty weapons systems overall. Neutron atomics can do the same thing, but we decided those were "bad".
View Quote


Enhanced Radiation weapons are an idea I can get behind.
Link Posted: 6/15/2014 2:58:21 PM EDT
[#50]

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top