|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2005 : 21:22:32
|
OK, it's not technically a book review, but it's based on a book, and I'm gonna talk about the book too, which I read.
Just watched Errol Morris's award-winning documentary The Fog of War , about Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and LBJ; played a huge role in the Vietnam.)
It was very even-handed. The interviewer got him to be rather candid. The film revealed both good and evil sides of the man: Good - when it spent time on his career at Ford trying to make cars safer for drivers, and when it ended with a blurb about his humanitarian work after he retired. Evil - when he said that what he did during WWII, involving the fire bombing of Japan, amounted to war crimes, and then the camera loomed in on his face.
 I bought a bootleg copy of McNamara's book, In Retrospect (mostly about the Vietnam War) from a one-legged, one-eyed man with no forearms, outside of Vietnam's War Museum. Even though the whole premise is that hindsight is 20/20, the more I read, the more I kept screaming at my husband, "What the fuck did they think they were doing? What did they think they would accomplish?" McNamara's most convincing excuse was the lack of ability to empathize with the enemy, largely because suspicions during the cold war had led to the removal of a lot of foreign service officers who'd spent years in Asia and who therefore better understood the history and mentality there. But regardless, the recording and memos seemed to prove that Kennedy and McNamara both agreed that without the support of the people in Vietnam, the war could not be won, and they also took note of strong indicators that the support of the people simply wasn't there.
I don't feel sorry for McNamara (after all, he's a long, happy life surrounded by family) but I appreciated that he wrote the book, even if he did so late in life instead of right after he left his position. Getting the information and analysis out there later is better than not at all.
Some people get mad at McNamara still, and I can understand that. But I don't feel it myself, probably because of my young age, and because his book did help me gain knowledge about that part of history. I really feel nothing toward him personally. The heavy events that his book and this documentary examine, overshadow him.
In the documentary, he talks again about the failure to understand the enemy. He specifically talks about how the Vietnam view was that this was a civil war, and that the US was another colonial power trying to replace France, while the US view was that this was an element of the Cold War. This particular lack of understanding disgusts me. One needed only know some basic history of that part of the world and exercise a moderate amount of empathy to get that much. Sometimes I wonder if McNamara really is making excuses, at least with some of his talk of hindsight. Sometimes it seems he did realize at the time that the government was making bad decisions, but he went along with it, and now he's trying to resolve that error for his own peace of mind or whatever.
After the documentary was over, my dad (who watched it with me) called McNamara the "ultimate yes man". (feel free to note any parallels with another ex-Secretary). Indeed, that seems to be the only way to make sense of the man's life. Obviously McNamara is not only an incredibly intelligent person, but also a deeply feeling person who cares about his fellow human beings. How does such a man end up doing so many of the horrible things he did, or didn't do or say that he should have? I called that tragic, and my dad got mad. I explained, "Well, a tragic figure is a basically good person who because of some flaw, does something terrible." My dad said, "But he didn't suffer for it." Good point.
McNamara won't answer any overly controversial or personal questions about his feelings. One question was if he feels guilt over what happened during Vietnam. He wouldn't answer that either.
He didn't have to.
[Edited to add book links - Dave W.]
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 17:18:48 [Permalink]
|
Fuck McNamara.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 16:21:33 [Permalink]
|
I read "In Retrospect" and had a couple of impressions. First, what seems to have driven the escalation/perpetuation of the Vietnam conflict early on (during the Kennedy and Johnson days when Macnamara was Secretary of Defense) was that all of the political and military leadership, and most members of their administrations (including Macnamara) were firm believers in the "Domino Theory"... almost a religion, of sorts, with them (I hope the dogma that's driving our current Middle Eastern affairs, whatever it is, proves more successful in guidance.) Considering Stalin, if this was paranoia, it was possibly a justifiable paranoia. One of the others involved in those days (I think it was Maxwell Taylor, but I'm not sure) said in an interview he suggested early on to Macnamara that the situation didn't look promising in his opinion, and that we might consider withdrawal... Macnamara asked whether if we did, he could guarantee that the next communist insurgency we faced would be easier to stop- he replied that he couldn't, and that was the end of that.
Macnamara said in the book that prior to his resignation, he secretly advised Johnson to abort the effort, explaining that mistakes in judgment had been made, but by that point Johnson was firmly entrenched and wouldn't listen. I thought the strangest opinion he rendered was- he was confident that had Kennedy lived, Kennedy would have had the insight to get us out of there. I've read numerous books on the war, and it was noted by North Vietnamese leadership that we really had them "On the ropes" twice... after Tet, and after the Christmas Bombings. Allegedly, they were close to "Throwing in the towel" both times, but realizing how much social turmoil was being generated in the States by the anti-war movement kept them going after Tet, and Congress wouldn't support Nixon to deliver the Coup de Grace following the Christmas Bombings- the ordnance tonnage dropped by B-52s was on the order of a nuclear bomb, and the devastation was described by North Vietnamese as "incredible" but they held on. I suppose nobody really knows (for sure) if we could have won that mess. As it turned out, everybody lost.
The book was written in a congenial tone, and he speaks highly of, and emphasizes the strengths of those he worked with and served, especially Johnson and Kennedy. It really reminded me of how easy it is to criticize and be an armchair quarterback, and made me think twice about it (even though I still do it.) Macnamara made the valid point in his book that Vietnam was just one of multiple problems they had to deal with- among the others, the Cuban Crisis, Europe, and of course, the Soviet military build-up.
He was probably among the most intelligent, dedicated, and hardworking Secretaries of Defense we've had, but it seems he lacked "a feel for the intangibles" as it was once put. I, too, thought he sounded like a "Nice guy"... not arrogant with an ego that could crush the globe, being unwilling to listen to anyone, as others have depicted him in interviews... I mentioned this to my brother, and he shot back, "A nice guy according to who?" I (had to) reply, "Well, him" (which made me feel like kind of an idiot... maybe I deserved to have my foot shoved in my mouth.) Hard to say. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/04/2005 17:05:51 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 20:01:05 [Permalink]
|
Allegedly, they were close to "Throwing in the towel" both times, but realizing how much social turmoil was being generated in the States by the anti-war movement kept them going after Tet, and Congress wouldn't support Nixon to deliver the Coup de Grace following the Christmas Bombings- the ordnance tonnage dropped by B-52s was on the order of a nuclear bomb, and the devastation was described by North Vietnamese as "incredible" but they held on.
A hardline Republican friend of mine has brought this up to argue that the protestors did more harm than good. But the problem is that by this point in the conflict:
1.) So much human destruction had been done that the whole thing was already not worth any unprovable domino theory. (I emphasize here that a theory in political science is not nearly as credible as a scientific one.)
2.) Long before this - McNamara writes it into his book - Kennedy and him both agreed that the war could not be won without the support of the Vietnamese people, and they both suspected that the South did not have that necessary support.
Let's say Congress allowed Nixon's Coup de Grace, and that lead to the North's defeat. Where would we be today? I doubt Vietnam would have risen to being a economic power-house, so let's just say they'd be poor and friendly with the US. And, gee, today they are poor and friendly with the US. As far as I'm concerned, Congress saved a lot of peoples' lives by stopping Nixon. The extremes to which that war was taken were sick because so much was rooted in political investment and posturing, not just the domino theory.
And the people in power deserve all the criticisms and "fuck you"s they get, because they had incredible power, and thus their reponsibility was that much greater. McNamara has money and his family. He never had to worry about being drafted or bombed. He doesn't need your respect. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/04/2005 20:06:21 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 20:47:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
[b]Allegedly, they were close to "Throwing in the towel" both times...
A hardline Republican friend of mine has brought this up to argue that the protestors did more harm than good. But the problem is that by this point in the conflict:
1.) So much human destruction had been done that the whole thing was already not worth any unprovable domino theory. (I emphasize here that a theory in political science is not nearly as credible as a scientific one.)
2.) Long before this - McNamara writes it into his book - Kennedy and him both agreed that the war could not be won without the support of the Vietnamese people, and they both suspected that the South did not have that necessary support.
....
Let's say Congress allowed Nixon's Coup de Grace, and that lead to the North's defeat... He never had to worry about being drafted or bombed. He doesn't need your respect.
First, I've personally had, and have friends who's lives were directly, and indirectly seriously impacted or ruined by the war. One family friend's brother was a B52 pilot, a Major, killed on his last (100th mission) before retiring from the military... his sister never got over it, as to this day has been a religious fanatic as a direct result. I'm as aware and expathetic as anyone who wasn't there to the suffering of those effected. I've known amputees (I worked for one,) and know former South Vietnamese combatants and citizens- as a group, they had it even worse. I make no excuses for those who's wrong decisions led to such tragedy, but I believe their misjudgment was not a result of coldheartedness, negligence, or evil, despite the ugliness that resulted, but of their best efforts not having been adequate. It destroyed Johnson- literally- and it took a toll on Macnamara. I don't know that they deserve to be harshly judged- nobody knew the answers, and the country was divided.
Yes, your points are valid that JFK and Macnamara agreed that we had to win the hearts and minds, and there was a huge effort to do so, going on long after Macnamara was gone- it wasn't immediately clear the strategy wasn't working. Yes, they would have ended up US friendly and poor, but that wasn't known, either... in those days, they believed they could pacify the communists, and eventually economically develop the country- they even had plans to give them a small nuclear reactor while Diem was still in power (alive.) After Macnamara left, Johnson didn't know what to, and it wasn't clear by any means it was "unwinnable"... they'd invested a lot of money and lives, and wanted to pull it out if at all possible. The toll kept piling up, and Nixon took office with his back against a wall... it's to his credit, and Kissingers, that we got out of there when we did. Tough situations, hard to know what's best. I'm not going to slam people for not having crystal balls, tragic as the whole thing was.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 11:41:08 [Permalink]
|
First, I've personally had, and have friends who's lives were directly, and indirectly seriously impacted or ruined by the war.
I didn't say you weren't affected personally by the violence of the war.
I make no excuses for those who's wrong decisions led to such tragedy, but I believe their misjudgment was not a result of coldheartedness, negligence, or evil, despite the ugliness that resulted, but of their best efforts not having been adequate.
“Coldheartedness” certainly did play a role – I don't think with McNamara – but one only need to seek out some of the racist statements and harsh things advocated by certain military advisors at the time and Nixon (not to mention the supporters of the war) to know that was an element.
“Negligence”, as well as misplaced priorities, I absolutely will attribute to McNamara and Johnson both. McNamara knew plenty of good reasons why sending more troops and escalating the whole thing was wrong, but he didn't speak out after Johnson let him go. Why not? Because he was more loyal to Johnson that it was to the American people that Johnson was supposed to be serving. Or he was just too chicken. He waited until he was an old man and the whole thing had been done and over with for a couple decades before he came out with a book. And Johnson was entrenched for political reasons. Johnson really was in a position where he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, and he took a chance on doing it, and that was the decision that cost thousands of lives, and that's wrong.
As for “evil”, I don't believe in “evil” in any objective sense, and I think throwing it around in political discussions just heightens emotions and precludes thoughtful discourse.
I do agree with all your points too, but I still hold them to some degree in contempt because all those arguments require putting political theories above the value of human life. Think about it: If we don't get involved militarily, things might get stickier and then we'll have to get involved in a bigger way later. So let's just get involved now. This is exactly what happened with Iraq – Sadaam might become a problem again in the future, so let's attack now. The problem is that when you're talking about military involvement, you're talking about guaranteeing that right now people will die.
It destroyed Johnson- literally- and it took a toll on Macnamara.
Are we supposed to have sympathy for Johnson because he didn't get to be President as long as possible, or feel sympathy for McNamara ‘cause he had to deal with public criticism? Both men had incredible and enviable lives, both before and after Vietnam. This is exactly what I mean when I say they don't need your respect. People with power need to be held to a much higher standard. I don't compare their decision making process to how I would have dealt with it, because I'm not making the choice to be in that position. They did, and dealing with public criticism was hardly a big thing to have to suffer through compared with what they got out of it.
You know, I'm really wishing filthy would expand his comment since he lived through the era and has strong feelings. I always feel sort of weird discussing recent events that I wasn't around to personally witness. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 16:26:09 [Permalink]
|
Fontitis cured.
Originally posted by marfknox
"Coldheartedness" certainly did play a role , I don't think with McNamara, but one only need to seek out some of the racist statements and harsh things advocated by certain military advisors at the time and Nixon (not to mention the supporters of the war) to know that was an element... AND...
As for "evil", I don't believe in "evil" in any objective sense, and I think throwing it around in political discussions just heightens emotions and precludes thoughtful discourse.
+ RESPONSE:
Yes, I agree, regarding some. I know you reasonably said the "Evil" bit I mentioned is best left out of such discussions, and you're right... I'm really intending to write this stuff in a "matter of fact" way, as it's not at all an emotional issue with me (I, like you, were't personally involved in the period- I missed the end by about 5 years.) "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder, yea, but, regarding leadership of the period, I'd venture to say Nixon was an evil man, albeit an effective president in many respects. Curtis LeMay was an evil man, also, yet a highly-effective leader in many ways (and I'm sure he was a nice guy, and played a helluva game of backgammon when he wasn't trying to start nuclear war. [joke]) Mao was an evil man, although his regime had it's benefits (former girlfriend's father was a Cantonese peasant farmer when Mao took over... he told me for his family and community, it was great... they had enough to eat for a change.)
+
"Negligence", as well as misplaced priorities, I absolutely will attribute to McNamara and Johnson both. McNamara knew plenty of good reasons why sending more troops and escalating the whole thing was wrong, but he didn't speak out after Johnson let him go. Why not? Because he was more loyal to Johnson that it was to the American people that Johnson was supposed to be serving. Or he was just too chicken. He waited until he was an old man and the whole thing had been done and over with for a couple decades before he came out with a book. And Johnson was entrenched for political reasons. Johnson really was in a position where he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, and he took a chance on doing it, and that was the decision that cost thousands of lives, and that's wrong.
+ RESPONSE:
RE Macnamara, your point that he just disappeared from the scene is compelling, and I've thought about that myself, before. But realistically, what was he to do? He'd decided that he had made a monumental screw-up, told Johnson as much, and Johnson would not hear of it. He made an about-face, after spending years convincing leadership their course of action was viable, and plans for Vietnam had been feasible. Resign as Secretary of Defense, and join the anti-war movement? That would have terribly discredited the Administration (talk about stabs to the back,) and positioned him as a contender for the most destructive and ridiculous character in American history. But moreover, yes, I prefer to believe he placed loyalty to Johnson over what he felt was best for the American people- yet I'm not sure there's anyone (not very many people, anyway) in such positions who would. Frankly, I can't think of any "I'd bet on"... maybe that just being human. So maybe "incompetence" would be a word I'd feel more comfortable with, assuming the situation was clearly unwinnable earlier, and he failed to perceive it, or act... I don't know whether that's the case, or not. But yea, I know where you're coming from. RE negligence and misplaced priorities, I don't know... you may be right (very gray and subjective.)
+
I do agree with all your points too, but I still hold them to some degree in contempt because all those arguments require putting political theories above the value of human life. Think about it: If we don't get involved militarily, things might get stickier and then we'll have to get involved in a bigger way later. So let's just get involved now. This is exactly what happened with Iraq; Sadaam might become a problem again in the future, so let's attack now. The problem is that when you're talking about military involvement, you're talking about guaranteeing that right now people will die.
+RESPONSE:
I'm a long way from a "hawk"... my sentiments are more along the lines of Jimmy Carter policy (scorned as that is, these days) but obviously war is unavoidable sometimes, and I have to believe the calls are tough to make. Yea, the "Domino Theory," looking back, was largely proven nonsense, but at the time (post WW2 and Korea) Stalin (a terrifying, sociopathic maniac if ever there was one) had molded our political view of the world. The conventional wisdom was Communism = The Soviet Union, possibly as a thinly-veiled satellite faction = idealistically rabid, militarily belligerant, enemy totalitarian states determined to destroy us at any cost. It wasn't just Macnamara, it was all of those guys from that WW2/Korea generation... those that didn't fit the mold had a loaded "McCarthy" pointed at them. The mindset was different. That's why I tend to be less judgmental than had such terrible mistakes had been made with, say, our present perspective.
+
RE It destroyed Johnson- literally- and it took a toll on Macnamara-
Are we supposed to have sympathy for Johnson because he didn't get to be President as long as possible, or feel sympathy for McNamara because he had to deal with public criticism? Both men had incredible and enviable lives, both before and after Vietnam. This is exactly what I mean when I say they don't need your respect. People with power need to be held to a much higher standard. I don't compare their decision making process to how I would have dealt with it, because I'm not making the choice to be in that position. They did, and dealing with public criticism was hardly a big thing to have to suffer through compared with what they got out of it.
+
RESPONSE:
They caused a terrible amount of damage, yet I have felt that this was in spite of their best efforts... your mention of the "silence" issue has made me less certain of the innocuousness of Macnamara's role. I had believed that neither man put personal glory or financial gain ahead of the best interests of the country (which would make them worthy of scorn,) yet your comments have made the matter seem a little more gray, I must admit. Yet Johnson had 2 heart attacks before he took office, and he knew there was a good chance that he wouldn't live through a second term. He had a vision for a "Great Society" and his desire was to implement it as rapidly as he could. He did many good things, some of which were dismantled after the failure of his presidency. Because of the catastrophic nature of the direction he put the country in RE Southeast Asia, it's tempting to direct a lot of wrath his way, but I have reservations. It was a tough situation. I really don't know.
+
You know, I'm really wishing filthy would expand his comment since he lived through the era and has strong feelings. I always feel sort of weird discussing recent events that I wasn't around to personally witness.
+ RESPONSE:
Yes. Guy I worked for liked to talk about Vietnam (and referred to us as "his platoon")... I was the only one who didn't gripe about that. I liked to hear about it. One of those areas of historical interest to me. A lot of folks would disagree with my assessments strongly, but that's OK... I might be wrong, and it's it interesting to hear other views either way. Why don't you email the filth, tellem' I'm lionizing Macnamara, and you're not |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/06/2005 11:24:18 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2005 : 11:28:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know, I'm really wishing filthy would expand his comment since he lived through the era and has strong feelings. I always feel sort of weird discussing recent events that I wasn't around to personally witness.
I lost a lot in 'Nam and it's something I don't discuss, even with other vets of the era, and I am not unusual in this. I tell no war stories. Sorry, guys.
But I will say that, as it has been written, "Old loves die hard; old hatreds live forever."
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 12:27:52 [Permalink]
|
ronny,
I really appreciate this conversation with you. (I just read your latest response now 'cause when it was all screwed up I didn't bother.) I will only make one comment on this viewpoint (and I totally get that you are an open-minded person who is looking at this issue from many viewpoints.): Resign as Secretary of Defense, and join the anti-war movement? That would have terribly discredited the Administration (talk about stabs to the back,) and positioned him as a contender for the most destructive and ridiculous character in American history. Most people in this world will suffer far greater things than public and historical humiliation. Keep in mind too that many historical figures who are considered ridiculous to some, are heroes to others. Also, McNamara already is a hated figure in history to many.
As for the idea that discrediting the Administration is destructive - it is exactly that sort of attitude that allowed an obviously incompetant person to be elected President in 2004. It is also exactly that sort of attitude that is used to censor media, restrict and ban public protests, and restrict civil liberties in general. Not only is it acceptable to discredit an administration that is doing wrong, it is our duty as citizens to stand up and criticize our government when we think they are doing wrong, particularly if we're in a position to know. The story-teller/singer Utah Phillips quoted a friend of his that I'll now re-quote: "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
filthy,
Hey, man, the last thing I want to hear is war stories. And I know you're not unusual in refusing to talk about it. Neither would a guy at work ('cept to say that he lost many friends there) and my Uncle Tom refuses to vote or play any role in American politics, much less talk about Vietnam. Hearing war stories is pretty much why I'm considerably anti-war. I was just interested in a first-hand take on the American politics at the time. It's cool if you don't want to talk about that either. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/08/2005 12:31:32 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 13:54:27 [Permalink]
|
RE (ME) Resign as Secretary of Defense, and join the anti-war movement? That would have terribly discredited the Administration (talk about stabs to the back,) and...
[quote]Originally posted by marfknox
As for the idea that discrediting the Administration is destructive - it is exactly that sort of attitude that allowed an obviously incompetant person to be elected President in 2004. It is also...
Yes, I thought that remark might precipitate a response along those lines, and it has validity. Despite the confusing (and effective) propaganda efforts by very clever people assisting those in power to manipulate the masses, I feel that if everyone spoke the truth as they perceived it, and participated, it's possible that our country could be a better place to live, and much pointless bloodshed could be avoided. But at the same time, again and again I've read of people being maneuvered into voting against their own best interests- at the State as well as the National level- by application of such clever devices, which is rather disenheartening.
At the same time, I know that I should be less quick-to-judge in many instances, because it's entirely possible that I'm less informed than I think I am of the true nature of situations (even though I express harsh judgments in postings and such) sometimes I say these things flippantly, and other times I'm joking (there are times when I should make that more clear.)
You may be correct RE Macnamara's predicament/dillema... I really can't say. It reminds me of a story from a book by a Special Forces Colonel (retired General at the time of the writing) depicting the difficulties and frustrating nature of the "Hearts and Minds" battle. A civilian engineer, medic, and teacher were sent to a remote Vietnamese village to live, and improve the lives of the inhabitants. There was a ceremony, where the village Chief introduced them to much applause; a middle-aged man stood observing silently in the background. That night, the man and 3 others came to them and explained it was a Viet Cong village; they could stay and do what they came to do- help the people- or they were free to go if they chose, but were warned the jungle was very dangerous, and they might not make it back. They somberly agreed to stay and help, becoming part of the Vietcong infrastructure, contrary to their patriotism to their country. Considering the situation, it's hard to judge them.
RE filthy
I understand and respect his stance; I've seen this numerous times. Some vets like to speak of these things, others would prefer to let dead horses lie. I might very well feel the same way were I in his shoes... there are things I don't care to talk about myself, some because I've rehashed them so many times I think "Oh, man, not that again" and other things I'd just as soon forget.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
