Pak modified Harpoon to direct against India: US
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 30 August 2009, 11:36am IST
Print Email Discuss Bookmark/Share Save Comment Text Size: |
WASHINGTON: Pakistan has illegally modified US supplied missiles for potential use against India, Washington has just discovered, in a belated
realization that uncontrolled supply of weapons to the dangerously unstable country poses a security threat to the region, including eventually to western forces in Afghanistan.
Judging by a suspicious missile test on April 23 this year, Pakistan has modified the US supplied Harpoon anti-ship missile to strike at land targets, according to American officials, who say the changes are a violation of the US Arms Control Export Act. The test was kept secret not publicly announced by Pakistan.
The US charge, which has set off a new outbreak of tensions between Washington and Islamabad, was made in an unpublicized diplomatic protest in late June to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and other top Pakistani officials, the New York Times reported on its website on Saturday. The United States has also accused Pakistan of modifying American-made P-3C aircraft for land-attack missions, another violation of United States law, it said.
Expectedly, Islamabad has denied it fiddled with the Harpoon, and claimed it developed the missile itself. But Pakistan, it is famously said, does not even have the capability to make a tow-truck, let alone a missile. Its inventory is largely made of knock-offs of Chinese and North Korean missiles, and it now appears to have pilfered an American design to no great surprise.
What is surprising though is the timing of the leak in the US media, which appears aimed at questioning, if not torpedoing, efforts by sections of the Congress and the Obama administration to urgently supply even more economic and military aid to Pakistan, ostensibly to help in its war against extremists.
Critics of the five-year, $ 7.5 billion US aid package to Pakistan, which Congress is scheduled to take up next month, say Washington is bankrolling a basket case that has been selective and dishonest in its fight against extremist elements that it nurtured in the first place. Even US government reports have suggested Pakistan is using American arms to bulk up for a confrontation with India, even as many extremists remain state guests.
There is a strong demand in Washington for certifiable benchmarks before Congress signs off on the package, including scaling down its confrontationist posture against India, which the Pakistan military, long used to uninhibited expenditure, is resisting.
In the latest case, the Harpoon was originally sold to Pakistan as a defensive anti-ship missile, but it has been converted into weapon to strike targets on land. The NYT quoted American officials as saying that while the weapon in the latest dispute is a conventional one, the “subtext of the argument is growing concern about the speed with which Pakistan is developing new generations of both conventional and nuclear weapons.”
In fact, the country’s nuclear arsenal is said to be expanding faster than any other nation’s, and it is making heavy investments in both nuclear and conventional weapons that experts say have no utility in the battle against insurgents. In other words, the build-up is still directed against India. “There’s a concerted effort to get these guys (Pakistanis) to slow down,” an unnamed senior administration official told the paper. “Their energies are misdirected.”
——————-snip———————————-
Pakistani officials returned empty-handed from a recent FoDP meeting in Turkey, bitterly complaining about countries not meeting the $ 5.7 billion commitment they had made to Islamabad at a previous meeting in Japan. Another FoDP meeting is scheduled to be held in New York on September 23, by which time even the US Congress is expected to demand that Pakistan redirect its energies on meeting the internal threat from extremism, rather than prepare to confront India.
By: jawad - 9th September 2009 at 21:20
India-based intellectuals, be they civilians dabbling in strategic affairs or even serving or retired armed services chiefs, have repeatedly demonstrated a remarkable consistency in making ludicrous and largely discredited claims about Pakistan’s military-industrial capabilities that seemingly tend to give the Pakistan Armed Forces a debilitating force projection superiority over their Indian counterparts. The latest such accusation to have surfaced concerns the alleged efforts by the Pakistan Navy to modify its ship-launched Boeing-built RGM-84A and submarine-launched UGM-84A Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles (of 1984 vintage) into ship-launched 50nm-range dual-role anti-ship strike and land attack precision-guided missiles. True or false? Can such modifications be done covertly without any involvement by the guided-missile’s OEM?
The best and most convincing answer comes from none other than the OEM itself—Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, which had by the mid-1990s successfully modified the Harpoon into precision-guided land attack missile called SLAM-ER (standoff land attack missile-extended range), and had also developed the related Harpoon Shipboard Command Launch Control System and the AWW-14 data-link pod (this being for the air-launched variant of the SLAM-ER). The above slides clearly demonstrate what exactly were the modifications carried out by Boeing IDS on the basic Harpoon, and how this missile has since evolved into the SLAM-ER (which is now being offered to the Indian Air Force along with both the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-16IN Super Viper medium multi-role combat aircraft). Taking the cue from the SLAM-ER, both MBDA and Israel Military Industries (IMI) have adopted the same optronics-based precision-guidance approach for their SCALP and Delilah air-/ship-/submarine-launched standoff land attack missiles (as has the Pakistan Air Force with the Ra’ad air-launched land attack cruise missile).
Consequently, it emerges from the above that for any Pakistani military-industrial entity to modify the Harpoon into a LACM, it would not only have to radically redesign the missile’s nose section, but will also have to develop a passive optronic sensor and integrate it with the missile’s inertial navigation system, develop a new Shipboard Command Launch Control System, and develop the airborne data-link pod so that the LACM can be provided with over-the-horizon targetting (OTHT) cues at its terminal cruise phase. Which means, while the LACM will have to be launched from a warship lurking dangerously close to a hostile coastline, a defenceless manned airborne platform (either fixed-wing or rotary-winged) too will have to be in the warship’s immediate vicinity for providing OTHT cues.
Given such daunting R & D challenges, wouldn’t it be much easier for Pakistan to acquire and deploy ground-/air-/ship-launched LACMs like the Babur and Ra’ad, both of which not only have much longer engagement envelopes, but also heavier warheads for guaranteeing assured target destruction? And if at all it is so easy to modify or even reverse-engineer anti-ship cruise missiles of 1980s vintage, then can someone explain why the DRDO’s labs (like the DRDL, GTRE, IRDE and DARE) have still been unable to reverse-engineer the decommissioned BAE Systems-built Sea Eagle anti-ship cruise missiles (whose performance parameters closely resembled those of the Harpoon A) that have now been decommissioned and are available for total strip-down and cloning? Why has the DRDO been unable to re-engineer the Sea Eagle into an unmanned high-speed target drone capable of subjecting the Indian Navy’s Barak-1 and Kashtan-M close-in anti-missile defence systems to some pretty realistic threat simulation environments of the kind expected to be faced in wartime? Why does this operational requirement (for the drones) remain unfulfilled till this day? India’s civilian and military decision-makers—it thus seems—can bark galore but cannot bite.—Prasun K. Sengupta
By: insomnia.delhi - 6th September 2009 at 18:55
Moral of the story
Stop subsidising US Arms industry , you know where the money ends up
If anything it shows the very limited freedom their is with defence equipment from USA.
It really is a lease more than ownership, subject to the laws of USA.
By: Buran - 6th September 2009 at 18:02
Moral of the story
Stop subsidising US Arms industry , you know where the money ends up
To put it simply Pakistani military would say
80,000 Pakistani troops on the Afghan border = $$ and Weapons
no one is doing any one any favours they both need each other.
By: ante_climax - 6th September 2009 at 17:27
Actually Indian 10 billion or 15 billion is going for the U.S companies if one of the win the MRCA. The aid to Pakistan is by U.S government and they will give stuff away for free whether India buys from U.S or not.
We pay Boeing and Lockheed to get our stuff. America pays Boieng and Lockheed to give stuff to Pakistan. Now how is India subsidizing the U.S Arms industry ?
Indian money for the MRCA order may be big for Lockheed and Boeing but it is very insignificant when compared to Americas defense budget from which money is allocated to arm Pakistan.
I can only laugh at people making statements like this….over estimating India’s monetary prowess.
By: Austin - 6th September 2009 at 16:26
Moral of the story
Stop subsidising US Arms industry , you know where the money ends up
By: jawad - 5th September 2009 at 07:46
Despite Pak ‘modifying harpoons against India,’ US aid is assured
September 05, 2009 01:18 IST
The New York Times report that Pakistan illegally modified the harpoon anti-ship missile provided by the United States apparently to bolster its conventional weaponry against India, has embarrassed the Obama administration and Senators John F Kerry and Richard Lugar — the chairman and ranking Republican on the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee — just as Washington is poised to provide Islamabad [ Images ] with a massive economic and military largesse of $ 7.5 billion over five years.
Kerry and Lugar are the co-authors of this massive aid bill to Pakistan — a clone of which was authored by Congressman Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — that has progressed through the Senate and House Committees and after a final vote in the two chambers is to be signed into law by United States President Barack Obama [ Images ].
Aides to both the lawmakers contacted by rediff.com, refused comment beyond saying ‘we are studying this report,’ and waiting for ‘the investigation to be completed,’ before reacting to the New York Times story, but expressed confidence that they do not see the aid package to Pakistan being adversely impacted.
But, aides to Senators Carl Levin and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, with Levin being the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Menendez, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee — who have both expressed deep concern over continuing to provide Pakistan with massive amounts of aid since the Congress’s investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, has in recent reports found that US military aid to Pakistan meant to fight the insurgency in Pakistan and the threat posed by the Taliban [ Images ] and Al Qaeda [ Images ] had been diverted to beefing up its conventional arsenal to target India — and strongly expressed these fears during the Pakistan aid deliberations, said they would seek answers to this report and try to put a hold on the aid package, although however acknowledging doubts they would succeed.
But one aide told rediff.com, “Clearly, this report, it true, lends credence to our long-held concerns that Pakistan continues to misuse the security assistance that we provide for counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist operations and is more interested in building up a stockpile for a possible conflict with India.”
“We will certainly pursue the facts behind this very troubling report,” when Congress reconvenes this week, the aide added, but reiterated that Kerry and Lugar had steamrolled their legislation (first proposed by then Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and now vice president Joe Biden along with Lugar) with strong support from the Obama administration eliminating several proposed amendments that would specifically condition this aid, and predicted that it was highly unlikely that the latest report of alleged Pakistani chicanery would throw a spanner in the works of a bill on the verge of signature by President Obama as vital to the efficacy of his Af-Pak strategy.
When State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was asked about the report of Pakistan’s illegal modification — which Islamabad has strongly denied with its Ambassador in the US, Husain Haqqani even going to the extent of alleging that it’s all a part of an anti-Pakistan conspiracy by vested cabals–and India’s concerns, he bristled, and retorted, “You’ll have to talk to the government of India if they’ve had any reaction to these press reports.”
He said, “We’ve seen these reports in The New York Times. We take the possibility of any potential of any violations of obligations entered into pursuant to the Arms Control Act — we take these allegations very seriously.”
Kelly, confirming the contention in the report that US intelligence had found such a violation and Washington had taken it up with Islamabad, said, “We have engaged the government of Pakistan at the highest levels.”
“We recently negotiated an agreement in principle to establish mutually agreed inspections to address possible modifications to any arms that we’ve transferred, and we’ve notified Congress of potential violations of obligations entered in pursuant to the Arms Control Act to ensure that key leaders are provided information on US efforts to address them,” he said.
When asked if the President’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke [ Images ] during his recent trip to Pakistan had raised these questions with the Pakistani authorities, Kelly said, “First of all, I am talking in very general terms. I am not addressing these — this particular allegation. And I am not aware of any representations by Ambassador Holbrooke.”
Between 1985 and 1988, when the Central Intelligence Agency and the Inter Services Intelligence were working in concert to train and equip the Afghan Mujaheddin fighting the erstwhile Soviet troops following Moscow’s [ Images ] invasion of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration delivered 165 harpoon missiles to Pakistan.
In the wake of the NYT report, Congressman Ed Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, and the fiercest non-proliferation advocate in the US House, who also vehemently opposed the US-India civilian nuclear deal, fired off a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ] requesting information on the report saying “If (recent media reports) true, the modification of these would be a violation of the Arms Control Act.”
“In addition,” Markey, he founder and co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, said, “This would be yet another provocative and destabilizing action which threatens the delicate relationship between India and Pakistan.”
The lawmaker in his missive to Clinton argued, “The nascent nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan is extraordinarily worrisome, as both countries appear to be increasing their ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. It is for this reason that I opposed both the US-India nuclear deal, which will allow India to free up extra domestic uranium for nuclear weapons production if it chooses, as well as the construction of new plutonium production reactors in Pakistan, which could increase the size of Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal.”
Markey wrote Clinton that it is imperative that “the United States must discourage the development of destabilizing offensive weaponry by either country, such as the alleged modification of harpoon.”
“In order to understand the facts and circumstances surrounding Pakistan’s actions,” Markey sought answers to specific questions on the reported modification of the Harpoon. The questions mentioned in the letter are as follows:
* Did the United States government lodge a protest or otherwise communicate either formally or informally, with the government of Pakistan regarding that country’s US-exported harpoon missiles? If so, what was the content of that protest?
* Has Pakistan, as reported, allowed American officials to inspect Pakistan’s harpoon inventory to determine if modifications have been made? If so, has that inspection taken place? Were all of the harpoon missiles exported by the United States to Pakistan inspected? Were any modifications made to the missiles?
* Does the Department of State believe that the harpoon missiles in Pakistan’s inventory can be armed with nuclear warheads? Does the Department of State believe that Pakistan has armed or intends to arm any of its harpoon missiles with nuclear warheads?
* Does the Department of State believe that Pakistan has violated its commitment made under the harpoon export licenses? What repercussions are stipulated by the Arms Export Control Act in such a case?
By: Buran - 4th September 2009 at 17:22
How did the Americans know that the missile modified was supplied in the Regan era and is not from the lot provided in 96-97?
Maybe Pakistanis played with them during the decade long sanctions period, I wouldn’t blame them for it myself.
No wonder Pakistanis call that period blessing in disguise.
I don’t see any advantage in a land attack harpoon for Pakistan navy, they will have to come dangerously close to Indian soil to launch them, better put their efforts towards developing the naval Babur.
By: zero - 4th September 2009 at 16:05
Your statement is very clear and it dont need dictionary
Anyways if you are not saying with certainty that means there are chances that there is a connection between Babur (Modified naval version) and the suspicious missile test that USA claims was conducted by using the Modified harpoon. Although this claim has been rejectedby the Pakistan as incorrect and based on wrong intelligence as US has so far not provided any evidence
Now can you explaine based on what information you have reached that “(now)alleged” conclusion.Or you will just keep avoiding the question?
Very strange. “All I am trying to impress is that There is no connection with babur and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered.”
I said “US accusal“. I don’t understand where I said that I believe it?
What question you are talking about? Can you be specific? “Now alleged? Can you read the word alleged I used before? Read Here
The question I wanted to ask was that the US alleges that Harpoon has been modified/reverse engineered.
By: jawad - 4th September 2009 at 10:08
All I am trying to impress is that There is no connection with babur and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered.
Your statement is very clear and it dont need dictionary
Anyways if you are not saying with certainty that means there are chances that there is a connection between Babur (Modified naval version) and the suspicious missile test that USA claims was conducted by using the Modified harpoon. Although this claim has been rejectedby the Pakistan as incorrect and based on wrong intelligence as US has so far not provided any evidence
Now can you explaine based on what information you have reached that “(now)alleged” conclusion.Or you will just keep avoiding the question?
By: zero - 4th September 2009 at 07:42
I never said that “there is a connection with existence of Babur missile with Harpoon modification”. All I am saying from the start of this thread is that, It has been reported several times that Pakistan is developing cruise missiles which can be launched from land, air and sea. It would be far more logical to assume that test was of Pakistani naval cruise missile then assuming that suddenly Pakistan have now decided to modify very short range missile with small warhead instead of modifying / developing on the basis of long range cruise missiles whcih they already have.
On the other hand you are saying with certainty that “There is no connection with babur and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered.” Which would basically mean that US reports are correct (but we haven’t seen any such evidence so far)
So all i am asking is to help us understand, based on what information you have reached that conclusion
I am still waiting for you to point out the post where I said that “with certainty.” I have used the words “alleged,” please look up in the dictionary. So logically, I have not reached any conclusion.
By: jawad - 4th September 2009 at 06:51
My original question was how do you prove that there is a connection with existence of babur missile with Harpoon modification. I hope to answer your question after you have answered mine.
I never said that “there is a connection with existence of Babur missile with Harpoon modification”. All I am saying from the start of this thread is that, It has been reported several times that Pakistan is developing cruise missiles which can be launched from land, air and sea. It would be far more logical to assume that test was of Pakistani naval cruise missile then assuming that suddenly Pakistan have now decided to modify very short range missile with small warhead instead of modifying / developing on the basis of long range cruise missiles whcih they already have.
Pak, US rift over missile modification
Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani has also denied the report. He said the accusations are incorrect and based on wrong intelligence.
Oly proof USA has is that Its intelligence agencies detected on April 23 a suspicious missile test that appeared to indicate that Pakistan had a new offensive weapon.But this doesn’t indicate that it was Harpoon
Pakistan allows US to inspect Harpoons
Pakistan has rejected the report as ‘totally inaccurate’, urging the US media to focus on helping Pakistan to fight the common enemy of terrorism instead of making false allegations.
US taking Harpoon modification by Pak ‘very seriously’
“This is something that we take very seriously. We have raised the issue with the Pakistani Government. The (Pak) Government has responded with an agreement in principle for mutually agreed inspections,” the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley, said when asked about a news report published in ‘The New York Times’.
“In this particular case, we have some concerns. We shared them with the Government of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan has been responsive,” Crowley said.
“We would wait and see if those inspections can address the concerns that we have raised,” he said.
Source: US taking Harpoon modification by Pak ‘very seriously’
On the other hand you are saying with certainty that “There is no connection with babur and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered.” Which would basically mean that US reports are correct (but we haven’t seen any such evidence so far)
So all i am asking is to help us understand, based on what information you have reached that conclusion
By: jawad - 4th September 2009 at 06:24
Pakistan allows US to inspect Harpoons
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON: Pakistan has agreed to hold inspection of US-made Harpoon missiles in its arsenal to dispel allegations that it has modified them to target India, says a senior American official.
‘We have raised the issue with the Pakistani government. The (Pakistan) government has responded with an agreement in principle for mutually agreed inspections,’ US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley told reporters.
‘This is something that we take very seriously … in this particular case, we have some concerns,’ he added.
Between 1985 and 1988 the Ronald Reagan administration delivered 165 Harpoon missiles to Pakistan.
Earlier this week, The New York Times reported that Pakistan had modified the anti-ship missile to enhance its striking capabilities against India. The report also accused Pakistan of modifying US-made P-3 surveillance aircraft.
Pakistan has rejected the report as ‘totally inaccurate’, urging the US media to focus on helping Pakistan to fight the common enemy of terrorism instead of making false allegations.
Also at the State Department, spokesman Ian Kelly told a briefing that the Obama administration recently negotiated an agreement with Pakistan to deal with such disputes.
‘We take these allegations very seriously. We have engaged the government of Pakistan at the highest levels,’ he added.
‘We recently negotiated an agreement in principle to establish mutually agreed inspections to address possible modifications to any arms that we’ve transferred, and we’ve notified Congress of potential violations of obligations entered in pursuant to the Arms Control Export Control Act to ensure that key leaders are provided information on US efforts to address them.’
By: zero - 4th September 2009 at 03:41
You did not answer the question, how you decide that There is no connection between Babur cruise missile ( its naval version) and and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered? Any proof?
My original question was how do you prove that there is a connection with existence of babur missile with Harpoon modification. I hope to answer your question after you have answered mine.
By: jawad - 3rd September 2009 at 17:58
Lads,
Why don’t we wait for the yankes to have a look and then we go from their report.
True
This is only way to find out the truth
By: jawad - 3rd September 2009 at 17:57
Some words have been put in my mouth (here posts). I would be obliged if the two gents can point out that I said that babur is Harpoon or I got carried away with US (so called) propaganda.
All I am trying to impress is that There is no connection with babur and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered.
Even US has Tomahawk and Harpoons (babur and harpoons for Pakistan).These are mutually exclusive variables.
You did not answer the question, how you decide that There is no connection between Babur cruise missile ( its naval version) and and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered? Any proof?
By: zero - 3rd September 2009 at 17:34
As is have said earlier that it has been reported more than once that Pakistan is developing cruise missiles which can be launched from land, air and sea. It would be far more logical to assume that test was of Pakistani naval cruise missile as after the successful development of land and air launched cruise missiles then assuming that suddenly Pakistan have now decided to modify very short range missile with small warhead instead of modifying / developing on the basis of long range missiles they already have and a It is essentially more credible information then some US repots with no proof at all.
Now question to you is how you decide that naval missile launched is not in category of Babur cruise and is a modified Harpoon? Any proof?
Your example clearly shows that “you have blindly taken the news as a fact” as you referred the Babur CM as Honda city i.e. big one and naval cruise missile as motor cycle i.e. small one. Can you enlighten us, based on what information (other than wild claim by US with no argument and proof to back it up) you have come to this conclusion?
Man you need to make up your mind. First you said Babur and a modified Harpoon for land attack are exclusive. Then you say Naval Babur is unheard of. If you had done a little seraching there were plenty of official statements which have stated that naval babur is in works.
I don’t think i will be able to convince you otherwise though for obvious reasons :diablo:
Some words have been put in my mouth (here posts). I would be obliged if the two gents can point out that I said that babur is Harpoon or I got carried away with US (so called) propaganda.
All I am trying to impress is that There is no connection with babur and the US accusal that harpoons have been modified/ reversed engineered.
Even US has Tomahawk and Harpoons (babur and harpoons for Pakistan).
These are mutually exclusive variables.
By: giganick1 - 3rd September 2009 at 15:52
Lads,
Why don’t we wait for the yankes to have a look and then we go from their report.
Nick
—
Pull out of JSF
By: Farooq - 3rd September 2009 at 15:17
There is no evidence on the existence of navalised Babur. You example is something similar to”we have Honda City so we need not modify the motor cycle.” Absolutely makes not sense.
Man you need to make up your mind. First you said Babur and a modified Harpoon for land attack are exclusive. Then you say Naval Babur is unheard of. If you had done a little seraching there were plenty of official statements which have stated that naval babur is in works.
I don’t think i will be able to convince you otherwise though for obvious reasons :diablo:
By: jawad - 3rd September 2009 at 09:41
There is no evidence on the existence of navalised Babur.
As is have said earlier that it has been reported more than once that Pakistan is developing cruise missiles which can be launched from land, air and sea. It would be far more logical to assume that test was of Pakistani naval cruise missile as after the successful development of land and air launched cruise missiles then assuming that suddenly Pakistan have now decided to modify very short range missile with small warhead instead of modifying / developing on the basis of long range missiles they already have and a It is essentially more credible information then some US repots with no proof at all.
You example is something similar to”we have Honda City so we need not modify the motor cycle.” Absolutely makes not sense.
Now question to you is how you decide that naval missile launched is not in category of Babur cruise and is a modified Harpoon? Any proof?
Your example clearly shows that “you have blindly taken the news as a fact” as you referred the Babur CM as Honda city i.e. big one and naval cruise missile as motor cycle i.e. small one. Can you enlighten us, based on what information (other than wild claim by US with no argument and proof to back it up) you have come to this conclusion?
the subtext of the argument is growing concern about the speed with which Pakistan is developing new generations of both conventional and nuclear weapons. “There’s a concerted effort to get these guys to slow down,”
At issue is the detection by American intelligence agencies of a suspicious missile test on April 23 — a test never announced by the Pakistanis — that appeared to give the country a new offensive weapon.
By: zero - 3rd September 2009 at 08:44
There is no evidence on the existence of navalised Babur. You example is something similar to”we have Honda City so we need not modify the motor cycle.” Absolutely makes not sense.
Sign In
August 30, 2009 at 11:36 am