Can you say propaganda? - The Untold History of the United States (2012) Discussion

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

It's obviously his take on 'our sins' of the Cold War. I believe both sides had them.
But to be honest, what compelled me to reply is: Stone served as a marine in Vietnam. Interesting how that jibes with your signature about "Freedom, and those who served".
Edit. It actually could have been the Army.
Wiki
Stone served with the 25th Infantry Division and the 1st Calvary Division in Vietnam and was awarded both the Purple Heart and Bronze Star medals for gallantry in action.

reply

[–] Splarne 11 years ago

Stone served with the 25th Infantry Division and the 1st Calvary Division in Vietnam and was awarded both the Purple Heart and Bronze Star medals for gallantry in action.

so did he get the bronze star for putting a bullet in the head of a vietnamese grandmother or 4 year old? i just finished watching the episode on vietnam and basically, he stopped short of saying that was all we were doing... when we weren't carpet bombing the same grandmothers and small children.

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Exactly right! There is no new or profound information here, just Stone's far left, pro-communinist narrative. He cherry picks the favts that support his point.

The Episode on the Atomic Bomb is just plain shameful. In early summer of 1945, the World and America just wanted to war to be over. After the actions of the Japanese over the prior 8 years in which they raped, pillaged and murdered tens of million Asians, they had no say whatsoever. They were to surrender unconditionally. The bombs did indeed speed up this process. Oliver Stone is so full of crap. He is a disgrace to the American Service men and women who served and risked their lives in that war.

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

I'm inclined to agree, save the 'shameless' part.
Again, Stone served in combat during Nam. For better or worse, that makes him a 'real' cold warrior, as opposed to the ideological ones that never served, only opine.
And I'm not referring to you, truly. I'm not one. I served during the cold war, in peacetime. A commie never shot at me, and me neither a commie.
Stone certainly loses the context of the bomb dropping.
In fact, his painted picture of the horrors of 'firebombing' cities only proves why Truman would've been inclined to use it.
There was no 'moral high ground' by 1945. Not for us, or for anyone.
The fact is, had we somehow lost, it's conceivable Truman, LeMay, Churchill, etc, could've all been tried for war crimes as we perceive them.
Just for the firebombing, never mind the bomb.
But, we didn't lose.
There is a clear advantage to winning these things for politicians.
To flip it upside down, we captured and hung Saddam during a shooting war we actually started.
That said, you have to think Saddam would've done the same had he got his hands on Bush.
And while war is horrible, it's fascinating to discuss.
The 'playbook' has to be thrown out the window right after the first shot.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Thanks for the comments. I know this series will get into the Cold War, but I don't believe those episodes have aired yet. I can only imagine what Stone has to say about that.

As for there being no moral high ground in 1945. I have to disagree to a point. All sides committed atrocities of sorts which lead to massive numbers of civilian deaths. That point can't be debated. But for sheer numbers of civilians murders, the Axis powers were in a whole other league. If you look at total deaths by nation which occurred as a result of the War, the USSR and China are far ahead. This is the result of systematic slaughter of Soviet and Chinese civilians by the Axis powers. In fact, if you look at total losses by Axis poweres versus Allied, its apparent that, despite losing the War, the Axis powers did most of the killing.

Then there is the issue of moral equivalency. I live and work around a lot of liberal types, some are of the "knee-jerk" type. These people equate American internment of Japanese civilians with the Holocaust. No, I'm not joking.

It may sound corny, but I do believe the Allies were the "good guys" in WW 2, at least in comparison to who they were fighting. Of course you can point out Allied actions which led to needless civilian slaughter. In 1945, I believe the Allies just wanted the war to end. They may have taken some questionable means to achieve this, but the dropping of the atomic bombs in August, 1945, wasn't one of them.

I subscribe to the theory of the atomic bomb as the great peace maker. The World needed to see the horrors this type of weapon could bring, and that the use of such weapons should be avoided at all costs. It was a blessing that it was used by a Nation that understood the nature of the weapon, and used it to bring peace rather than conquest. Since WW 2, there have been no large scale wars, only regional conflicts. The nature of the "bomb" meant that the concept of "mutually assured self destruction" kept the Cold War adversaries at peace for 45 years. It is somewhat remarkable that no atomic weapons have been used in war in 67 years.

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

Thanks for the reply. One of my best friends is the 'liberal type' you mention. I have fiercer arguments with him than I do conservatives.
However, I consider myself a liberal, of the Kennedy/Nixon tradition, which could include Reagan, at times.
An Eisenhowwer Democrat, a Reagan Democrat, or a JFK Democrat, something like that.
Nixon tried to pass 'healthcare reform' in the 70's, and was stopped by Teddy Kennedy.
It's a strange world.
Now, my conservative friends that repeat FOX News and Rush stuff repeatedly?
I don't even bother, as they can tune someone out easily. I see most of right wing radio as some sort of 'hobby' that 're-validates' followers opinions every day, all day.
"Liberal me" did a tour in the USMC, unlike most of my friends, lib, con or otherwise.
So....I respect both sides, but adhere to neither.
That said, again, I don't see any 'moral high ground'.
WWII stands almost as a 'sacrament' to mans darkside.
The fire bombing of civilian cities certainly was an atrocity. What Germany did in the USSR was certainly an atrocity. As was Japanese behavior in Nanking.
I believe all moral high ground got 'thrown out'.
If I had been POTUS on Dec 7th, 1941, I'd have sent us to war, just as FDR did.
At the same time (and some of my friends can't stand that I have this concept), I recognize that Dec 7th was a military attack on soldiers, seaman, and ships, for military reasons. NOT civilians.
Somewhere over in Europe, the concept of 'total war' took hold politically.
Instigated by the Nazis, for sure, but the Brits caught on quick.
And that's how we fought Japan. We destroyed their civilian morale. This was the main goal of LeMay, he has as much as said so.
Again, I assure you, I probably would've done the same thing, given the context of the times. In fact, that's where Stone loses me. He applies his hindsight to morality. I don't know if you really can here.
However, I don't see any moral high ground.
The Japanese performed atrocities in Nanking. With the US, they only warred against serviceman.
We adopted a policy of burning civilians alive, a general was as good as a housewife or toddler, and everything in between, indiscriminately.
Had we lost, Japan would've been justified, IMO, of trying and convicting me of crimes against humanity, using our own moral scale.
Again, it's why i love these discussions. There really are no rules.
We teach our kids 'might doesn't make right', and then disprove it with war.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Your points are well taken. To be clear, I'm a Democrat, and a reluctant Obama voter.

I guess to further clarify my point, I would say there are "degrees" of atrocity. For example, the internment of Japanese/American civilians was a human rights violation on a massive scale and a shameful episode in our history, but to equate that with the Holocaust is foolish and dangerously misguided.

In terms of murder of civilians, the Allies no doubt murdered 100,000s of civilians in fire bombings in Germany and Japan. They also continued bombing in Europe even when all targets had been taken out. But how does this compare to the Nazis who murdered no fewer than 15 milion civilains, and as many as 20 million, or the Japanese who murdered no fewer than 7 million Chinese civilians and probably many more than that?

In terms of the Allies I do fault the Brits for targeting civilians in their night-time bombing campaign, but then again, they were out for revenge. The Soviets has their atrocites to answer for, such as Stalin's murder of all Poland's pro-west military officers.

I do believe in WW 2, there was absolute evil in the actions and ideology of the Axis powers. This had to be defeated at any cost. This is a fact Stone wants to completely ignore. I believe there was a feeling that if the US had to invade the Japanese mainland, there was the possiblity that Japanese civilization could be destroyed, along with many more millions of civilian deaths. Stone doesn't present any real evidence that this wasn't a huge concern for Truman.

Stone's contention that the Soviets might invade the Island of Hokaido is ridiculous. The Soviets had no experience with ampibious warfare, and all the beachheads would have been defended to teeth.

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

Me too, Obama. Although I was never naive enough to believe the 'change' concept. I voted for a slick politician, and that's what I got. I was tired of republican economics. I'm all for 'trickle down' as a stimulous, but not as a decades long policy.
As absolute power corrupts, so can absolute wealth.
But i digress.
In any case, yeah, I would agree we were the 'good guys' on the moral plane.
The mere fact that we avoided getting into a shooting war until there was no choice gives us 'moral high ground', if you will.
No doubt German concepts of genetic superiority resulted in absolute evil. Furthermore, the Japanese treatment of the Chinese stands for itself.
Now, I'm not entirely sure of the timeframe for events.
When did we start fire bombing Japanese cities? As soon as our planes could reach Japan? I really don't know, and unfortunately I have to leave soon, but will continue later or tomorrow.
In other words, was civilian war our 'first policy' in Japan? Were we so in tune to the way the European war was fought, that we immediately went there ourselves?
And again, I probably would have done the same, I understand the attitude of the day, which I agree Stone understates.
Just trying to see through the moral prism, I suppose.
As for Stone, I'm not apologizing for him, or carrying his water.
Number 1, I disagree with much, number 2, he clearly has USSR sympathies, and most important, number 3, he doesn't need any help in making his points known, he's always been willing to stand up and take heat.
I don't think Stone is a traitor, I just think he's loud and 'over the top', which was always his strength in his early days as a screen writer.
When guys like Hannity, Penn, Limbaugh, and Olbermann say outrageous crap designed to 'proselytize' one way or the other while leveraging 'patriots and traitors', I wanna smack them upside the head.
When Stone does it, I'm OK with it, as he's earned it. Even though i disagree with much. A certain prejudice of mine, I suppose.
For instance, if Wallace got only 3% of the vote in '48, he clearly wasn't the dynamic force Stone makes him out to be.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

It took a huge amount of effort and money to get to the point where we could bomb Japanese cities with any degree of effectiveness. The B-29 program was actually the most costly weapons system of the war for the US (more expensive than the Manhatten Project).

Anyhow, it wasn't until the Americans secured the Marianas Islands in the fall of 1944, that we had forward bases close enough to bomb Japan. Even then it was slow going. It wasn't really until early 1945 that we could bomb at will, with adequate fighter escort. The decision was made to use incendiary bombs because Japanese cities were built almost entirely of wooden structures. B-29s were also designed to bomb from high elevations. Extremely strong jet stream winds over Japan made accurate bombing difficult. It was hoped that the complete destruction of huge Japanese cities would make the military government of Japan realize it was time to surrender.

Its interesting that Stone feels that Japan was in a position to name terms of surrender in 1945, after all the horrific atrocities they had commited all over Asia. It really makes Stone look stupid.

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

Yeah. Not so much stupid as delusional.

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

....and, at this point I'm giving in. I certainly believe there is merit in a discussion (or documentary) about the other side of the cold war.
Stone just seems too enamored of Stalinist Russia. When he does point out the purges and whatnot, it's done halfhearted. When he points out the US miscues, it tends to be scathing.
I don't believe in 'Good Guys and Bad Guys' during the Cold War. Not black and white to me. It exists mostly in gray areas, IMO.
It would be nice if someone could do a moderate version of the Cold War.

reply

[–] dfhering 12 years ago

Intriguing discussion past my original post. Both of you make valid points (except for the reluctant obama voter; I would never vote for anyone trying to foist the leftist or any agenda on all of us, and as a registered Libertarian and USMC vet also, I reflexively rebel against anything or anyone that tells me what to think. The problem with modern liberalism is that they confuse tolerance with forced acceptance....a much longer discussion for another place and time).

A couple of points not brought up: Japanese behavior in the Pacific theater was exponentially more xenophobic than anything we did to Japanese Americans. They considered us less than human; thus the Bataan Death march, and Unit 732. I also have objections to the characterization of 'poor Stalin'; that guy has more blood on his hands than Hitler ever did.

I agree that it is good to discuss this (the film on MacNamara, the Fog of War, is outstanding for that) Stone must have too many chemicals in his system. This series, while a quality watch, is still propaganda.

'for those who have fought for it, freedom has a special flavor the protected will never know'

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

The McNamara film is fascinating. The old 'Cold Warrior' almost implodes from his guilt from orchestrating Nam, yet "just follows LeMays orders" almost 'matter of factly'. Just one of the many riveting highlights of that doc.
Also shows that a discerning viewer can make up their own mind. Morris is clearly a pacifist. McNamara was clearly a hawk, albeit apologetic. (Did he find religion? LOL).
I am glad Stone is shining a light on the rarely considered 'other side of things' during WWII and the Cold War, which, hindsight being 20/20, were really one and the same.
The fascinating thing about it? The players kept changing sides. Hitler ultimately wanted to quash the Communists. It's where he chose to expand. So....he fought western Europe to hang onto that goal, not that expansion in general was bad for him.
It's just factually true that the Nazi's, save their genetic evil, had much more in common philosophically with the UK than USSR. They were basically 'cousins', both racially in ideologically.
Hitler, looking back, was not just evil in a militaristic way, he was also like a petulant relative. He just was incapable of making sound decisions, what with all the toys he had (Luftwaffe, etc).
Not making the case for Hitler here, please understand. It's just Fascism was a Corporate Democracy until the Dictator thing came about. Are we that far removed from a Corporate Democracy?
I doubt it.
In any event, Stone clearly saddles up with a concept of "Pacifism" vis a vis Stalin and Leftist influences in the US.
And while I don't believe FDR would have handled the USSR as harshly as we did after 46, I certainly don't think he would have given them the bomb as Stone subtly speculates.
FDR had what all great Presidents have: the ability to strike a deal when he can't get his way.
Obama? So far, not so.

reply

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

Actually the US was worse, the Japanese used to keep prisoners of war. The Americans had a policy of taking no prisoners alive and would shoot and kill any who surrendered. This led to the Japanese promoting the kamikaze until death type of attacks on Americans.

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

The Japanese Military were trained to fight to the death, which is also a big part of the equation. Yes, some Allied personnel didn't see the point in taking prisoners (although it wasn't written 'policy'). Allied troops would surrender when the situation was deemed hopeless. The Japanese didn't treat prisoners very well. You're idea that US policy instigated Kamikaze squadrons is laughable. Hell, it's an insult to the Japanese warrior creed, which, for what it was , was admirable.
Look, if you want to say, "If America says 'yes', it makes them evil. If America says 'no', it proves they're evil", fine. I don't know how many times over the course of two threads I insinuated the US was guilty of war crimes, but apparently you're so angry you missed it.

reply

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

if you condone the bombing of civilians cities to end a war quickly. Then you are a supporter of alqaeda, as that is their entire tactic. To kill American civilians in order to make America withdraw their soldiers from Muslim lands quickly.

I don't see the difference between you and an alqaeda supporter. both acts are the same, yours is worse, as japan was surrendering, unlike America.

reply

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

Again, where was it condoned?

reply

[–] Mumwaldee369 12 years ago

I agree with the OP, you can hear the loving tone of Stone's voice when he's talking about Stalin as if he were your favorite uncle or something. Stalin purged and starved MILLIONS of his own people. Anyone that looks up to him or Mao are idiots that support brutal totalitarian government.

.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rodneyfredericks 12 years ago

What Stalin did in his own country was USSR business. Purging, burning, starving, whatever...there are no excuses for such behavior no matter how you look at it...
But this is what he did in his country. The US time and time again has gone on foreign and purged, pillaged, bombed and starve. Their benevolence knows no end. They only want everyone to behave in a democratic fashion. We all know physically the bomb was dropped on Japan, but psychologically it was meant to scare the Bear. America did not know how to deal with Stalin with his vast army and natural resources. In this time the only other potential superpower.. We all have heard allegation that FDR was aware of the Pearl Harbor attack before it actually happened...america needed the excuse to enter the global arena and show off their muscles...The American People would be hard against US entry into war unless there was a valid excuse...Pearl Harbor...I am pro America all the way but seriously...Its only propaganda when it slants violently away from the propaganda we've been fed since childhood and now believe to be the ultimate truth...

reply

[–] peterpicture 12 years ago

Lenin had a term for this - "useful idiot". On wikipedia;

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

I've only seen Ep#1 so far - kinda WW2 for teenagers. Not without merit; Herman Wouk's "Winds of War" covers it much better though.

I wonder what the rest is like...

reply

[–] suneater 12 years ago

Herman Wouk's "Winds of War" covers it much better though.

That a bombastic piece of 1970's fiction by a dramatist about the usual crapload of US WWII heros saving the day has more educational merit to you than a documentary written by an award-winning history professor, oscar-winning screen-writer, another writer, and three researchers is like comparing the history of the tuna by way of The Little Mermaid to The Origin of Species to me.

reply

[–] peterpicture 12 years ago

Yes - I've revised my opinion of Stone's work, and very much for the worse. Look at Ep #1, 38 minutes in. I quote - "The Japanese conquest conquest continued largely unimpeded. They captured one sixth of the Earth's surface" and at 38.23, shows a map with all of China and India under Japanese occupation.

Both of these are utterly wrong; at it's greatest extent, the Japanese empire covered one twentieth of the land surface of the world, China was not occupied save for Manchuria, and India wasn't invaded at all.

If the guy can't work out who ruled nearly half of the world population, there's no point in watching further - all other details become equally suspect.

Wouk's account is largely accurate, a welcome contrast.

reply

[–] suneater 12 years ago

The map shown in the documentary is black & white footage from an old US propaganda newsreel, the type of propaganda that would show animated blood seeping out of Nazi Germany and enveloping European countries. They'd use the same scare propaganda tactics against the Soviet Union, as shown later in the series.

And Japan did capture 1/6 of the Earth's surface. That includes the territorial waters of those occupied countries that covers Asia and the Pacific Ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Empire1942.png

That map is obviously not 1/20 of the Earth's surface. Also, not once is an invaded India mentioned in the documentary either.

If best-selling dramatist Herman Wouk taught you history, no wonder you're facts are fiction.

reply

[–] peterpicture 12 years ago

"The map shown in the documentary is black & white footage from an old US propaganda newsreel" - He didn't quote the source, but at 38.23 as he says "Months" it clearly show both China and India as being occupied. Wrong - they never were. If it was "the type of propaganda that would show animated blood seeping out of Nazi Germany and enveloping European countries" then where's Europe? Where's the blood? And why did he use it?

Thanks for your map btw. It isn't the one that Stone used, is it?

As to the area involved, there's a convention when it comes to area. We speak of the Soviet Union covering one-sixth of the earth's surface, or the British Empire occupying one-fourth of the world's area; if Stone wishes to disregard this he should say so... Where does he say so? Not before - where? When? Ever?

"Japan did capture 1/6 of the Earth's surface", or an area nearly as large as the Atlantic... except that it didn't; if we stretch the point to include territorial waters, the proportion might rise from i/20 to 1/19. Or might not.

On this showing, Stone is about as credible as source Curveball.

"no wonder you're facts" - Why, thank you!

reply

[–] suneater 12 years ago

Stone did'nt create that grainy 1940's black & white propoganda newsreel clip at 38.23. It's from the 1940s, it's war propoganda that was designed to somewhat inspire or scare the citizen. Stone uses the old newsreel propaganda clips again and again and again to documentarial effect at 13.23, 15.56, 16.03, 26.36, 35.43, 36.43 (which pretty much answers your next set of confused questions, I hope!) Are you going to claim Stone got facts wrong based on those newsreel clips as well? You have utterly confused the 1940's black & white propoganda newsreel clip at 38.23 as a statement from Stone. Dear lord...

Thanks for your map btw. It isn't the one that Stone used, is it?

You're welcome. But no, Stone used a (Japanese?) 1940's black & white propoganda newsreel clip showing parts of Asia being taken over- China and India included, the points where you get confused and thought Stone made those statements.

Here's another map that clearly shows 1/6 of Earth's land and territorial waters under Japanese Imperial occupation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:German_and_Japanese_spheres_of_influence_at_greatest_extent_World_War_II_1942.jpg

1/19 at a stretch... well, probably in a best-selling Herman Wouk drama. But in reality, no.

reply

[–] peterpicture 12 years ago

"Stone did'nt create that grainy 1940's black & white propoganda newsreel clip at 38.23" - no, of course not. He used it though, and here i quote "...captured one sixth of the earth's surface in only six months" while showing this map... with China and India occupied. China and India were never occupied, now were they? Stone seeks to imply that they were. Or maybe he never saw the edits.

On to "territorial waters" then. These extend between 3 and 12 miles, so my conceding 1/19 was generous. Let's see what Wikipedia says on the extent of the Empire - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan which gives "Area - 1942 estimate 7,400,000 km² (2,857,156 sq mi)" About 1/20th, in fact.

Concerning your map*, perhaps you missed a bit - "This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version"

*the second that you've offered. You do realise, I hope?

All in all, it's a crying shame - I've been a fan of Stone's work for some years. and had really hoped to see a well-researched and documented account of America as an imperial power. I can see that i still have to wait; with errors of this magnitude and obviousness. this is a fatally flawed project, and you little more than an apologist grasping at straws.

Now, where was Wouk between 1941-45?

reply

[–] Reagunn 12 years ago

'for those who have fought for it, freedom has a special flavor the protected will never know'

Nice quote, since no US resident, citizen or otherwise, has fought for freedom since the Civil War, can I ask you which country you live in where you had the opportunity to fight for your freedom?

reply

[–] AtheistRevolution 12 years ago

I can say it and see it on US media. Remember how all mainstream US media sold the Iraqi war and fired anyone that dared to ask questions?

- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

[–] roell29 12 years ago

As they say, reality has a well-known leftwing bias. Here's the thing - nobody in the world believes what you believe except a large segment of brainwashed Americans and, outside of America, a relative handful of lackeys and stooges who are in the pay of America and the extremely wealthy subclass in cahoots with the Anglo-American empire (and the British ruling class and Nazis everywhere - since American foreign policy has been, in it's essence, a genocidal Nazi project). Everyone else in the world sees it like Stone because it's reality. I doubt you could find a single person not belonging to those groups who sees this documentary as left-wing propaganda and who supports the murder and mayhem this country has conducted in the name of anticommunism over the past 70 years. Not one. It's entirely predictable that this message board would be filled with automatons reflexively regurgitating the mendacious propaganda and comforting lies this country has been fed for the last 70 years despite Stone's best efforts to correct the record. Those Americans who are healthy enough to acknowledge these painful truths about their country would have no interest in arguing with you.

Leave the gun, take the cannoli...

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 12 years ago

As they say, reality has a well-known leftwing bias. Here's the thing - nobody in the world believes what you believe except a large segment of brainwashed Americans and, outside of America, a relative handful of lackeys and stooges who are in the pay of America and the extremely wealthy subclass in cahoots with the Anglo-American empire (and the British ruling class and Nazis everywhere - since American foreign policy has been, in it's essence, a genocidal Nazi project). Everyone else in the world sees it like Stone because it's reality. I doubt you could find a single person not belonging to those groups who sees this documentary as left-wing propaganda and who supports the murder and mayhem this country has conducted in the name of anticommunism over the past 70 years. Not one. It's entirely predictable that this message board would be filled with automatons reflexively regurgitating the mendacious propaganda and comforting lies this country has been fed for the last 70 years despite Stone's best efforts to correct the record. Those Americans who are healthy enough to acknowledge these painful truths about their country would have no interest in arguing with you.

Thank you.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;

reply

[–] Splarne 11 years ago

I doubt you could find a single person not belonging to those groups who sees this documentary as left-wing propaganda and who supports the murder and mayhem this country has conducted in the name of anticommunism over the past 70 years.

i am in complete shock and dismay that someone with this stance isn't living in a commune in rural siberia somewhere raising chickens to trade for his neighbor's bread.

it is also amusing to find that your enjoyment of freedom afforded by "this country" is to run it into the ground with unabashed fervor.

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

reply

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 12 years ago

Since American History as taught in schools is PROPAGANDA, it is refreshing to get a broader view.

_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"

Maximus Decimus Meridius

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]