Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Depths of American Brutality in Vietnam
There are some good documentaries out about the Vietnam War.I think the very first one "Hearts and Minds",by Peter Davies is probably the best of all these films.This documentary is the most effective anti-war film I've ever seen,and it accomplishes this fact through it's graphic scenes of violence and destruction(physical and moral).

Col.Patton is given a short passage in the documentary.It's inciteful because you can get a glimpse of the mans personallity.And,he comes off as,for lack of a better word,"brash".But,Colonel Patton is an old wily coyote,and even though he might sound "Bloodthirsty" to some,you can see he has this big giant grin on his face.This is the same sense of humor that got him into trouble with that Christmas card.

Check out this video segment [URL=""]HERE.
At about the 13.00 minute mark is Col.Patton.

Watch the full documentary.It will shake you up though!
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
Keith - threads such as this, with the give and take of judgements honestly made, justify the existence of DPF.

I'd heard of that documentary but never seen it before.

It's classic documentary making - sparse or no commentary, told through the juxtaposition of authentic voices, imagery, sound, bloody colour.

I take your points about Col Patton.

Your words have resonance: "This documentary is the most effective anti-war film I've ever seen,and it accomplishes this fact through it's graphic scenes of violence and destruction(physical and moral)."
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Kill Anything That Moves
Nick Turse Describes the Real Vietnam War


Turse, who devoted 12 years to tracking down the true story of Vietnam, unlocked secret troves of documents, interviewed officials and veterans including many accused of war atrocities and traveled throughout the Vietnamese countryside talking with eyewitnesses to create his book, Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.

"American culture has never fully come to grips with Vietnam," Turse tells Bill, referring to "hidden and forbidden histories that just haven't been fully engaged."

Posted February 11, 2013
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Quote:Kill Anything That Moves
Nick Turse Describes the Real Vietnam War

Man,that's golden,just rich.Nick Twerp,who wasn't even born yet when the Vietnam war was raging,describes the REAL Vietnam war.And look,there is Bill Moyers.That's the same Bill Moyers who worked in the LBJ administration that sent me and half a million others to that God Damned war.Fucking hypocrites!!!

Hypocrite with an agenda.

If Nick Twerp was interested in a true accounting of the war in Vietnam,and it's atrocities (we did this shit 40 years ago already),then why title your book "Kill Anything That Moves"?Why pick that one supposed quote to frame your whole discourse?No,Nick Twerp had an agenda to write about Vietnam in such a way as to reintroduce,the utterly false meme,that atrocities were the norm,and not isolated incidents.Bullshit!!!

Hope the book flops...........
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
Find the Bastards,
Then Pile On

Col.Pattons standing order for the 11th ACR


Thought I'd post this quote from Col.Patton's son.It fit's well......

"Let's be frank,the guy was a mixed bag,Robert Patton said,drawing laughter."He was an equal opportunity offender.He could tick off anybody,anytime,without warning."

"But he also had a gift for apology,humility,and humor."
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
My VCR copy is older than the hills and worn out.

Little wonder the Wurlitzer won't play this on TV in the age of double-war of 2010s.

Gotta keep 'em volunteering and ignorant to volunteer.

Wasn't it PBS when PBS was really independent and financed by the people, that showed this film.

It seems in my memory that I saw in on PBS in '75.

Thanks Phil and Peter for the links.

General opinions? In my home I'll express it to friends if they ask.
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.

Kerry's 1971 statement to congress and the American public was typical of the propaganda.

Fonda's dozen broadcasts were the Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally or Lord Ha Ha of the day.

The Holzers went to Colorado Springs to the Air Force archives for the transcripts and/or recordings.

Fonda would show up buying a place in Pecos, lecturing everyone on envirorighteousness having waxed ecstatic we should all get on our knees and pray we'd live under communism--was that right? Pray? No, that can't have been her word.

Bill Moyers said my guy then Barry Goldwater would nuke the little girl plucking daisies so we'd better elect his guy LBJ so we could napalm her.

JFK wasn't going. He was there in 1951. Who could look at the French overrun at Dien Bien Phu and think that was a project to take over from them like the Panama Canal.

The political leaders of the United States, having murdered the peace-maker, concocted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and sent hundreds of thousands of our young men and women, and so much ordnance.

The brutality was the exception, though Kerry and Fonda were insisting it was endemic.

Now we'll have Kerry as Secretary of State as we promote the Arab Spring chapter of the War on Terror, as the regimes of the two wars running are overrun by fundamendalists.

The plight of the man who shot Osama.

Vietnam was the the kidnapping and murder of U.S. foreign policy; the perpetuation of the Cold War business model.

For had LBJ intended to quickly win and end the war against Ho Chi Minh he would have allowed the Chiefs to mine Haiphong and bomb Hanoi.

November 1965. Two years after killing Kennedy to make the war go forward, LBJ acts to insure it will continue as a death trap.

His rules of engagement, allowance of sanctuary, sanitization of target lists were finessed by his caving to the histrionics of the CIA lapdog Cronkite, that Tet was the end--Bui Tin said it was the end for the North.

The world is better when the leaders are not corrupt, treacherous, soulless.

Those who gave so much did so with the belief it was a fight for freedom.

They were as much betrayed by corrupt political leadership as the victims of Benghazi.

The leadership will always mock, "What difference does it make?"

Sometimes people hang them on hooks and call it good.
Jim Hackett II Wrote:My VCR copy is older than the hills and worn out.

Little wonder the Wurlitzer won't play this on TV in the age of double-war of 2010s.

Gotta keep 'em volunteering and ignorant to volunteer.

Wasn't it PBS when PBS was really independent and financed by the people, that showed this film.

It seems in my memory that I saw in on PBS in '75.

Thanks Phil and Peter for the links.

General opinions? In my home I'll express it to friends if they ask.

Yeah,I have it on VHS also.I can't even remember where I taped it though.I also have the Criterion Collection DVD,which I think,might be the only source for DVD.Criterions are expensive!

Steve that PBS show might have been that 10 part series that PBS produced called "Vietnam A Television History".A great indepth history of the war starting with the French involvment.Hard to get but crucial for anyone wanting to learn about this particular war.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
You are most like correct about the PBS data.
I recall the Karnow series on PBS. That could easily be the show I was confused by.

I recall the reactions to that broadcast.
Talk about feeling like a stranger in a home land ...

Thank You for the links.
My VCR tape is so old it doesn't have the channel bug in the corner of the screen, so it has to be old.
It is not a commercial product.

Thanks Again
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
Looks like "Nick the Twerp" is not getting enough love for his hatchet job on Vietnam Veterans.Sorry Twerp........:monkeypiss:

April 09, 2013 [Image: printer.gif]

Nick Turse's Flawed, But Impassioned, "Kill Anything That Moves"

An Enfant Terrible Stumbles Upon the Vietnam War

"…the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."
Ulysses S. Grant (speaking of the Mexican War)

Comes now Nick Turse, forty years after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, with Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam, a compendious retelling of the horrors once inflicted by the United States of America against a tiny South East Asian adversary and its entire population. As a foundation for this grisly retrospective the author has assembled hundreds of sources, virtually all of which date from the time of the original telling, and to which he has joined the testimony of veterans and veteran observers along with the voices of Vietnamese victims unavailable for interview until long after the war had ended.

The impulse to resurrect en masse the record of this dirty war, what Turse characterizes as its "hidden history," resulted from an epiphany the author experienced in 2001 at the National Archives. As a graduate student "researching post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam veterans," Turse confides that he "stumbled upon… the yellowing records of the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group… more than 300 allegations of… atrocities that were substantiated by army investigators." The files, Turse says, were "long hidden away and almost forgotten."

Well, yes and no. A decade earlier, these same files had been scanned and duly cited by Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim, whose Four Hours in My Lai was motivated by a similar premise, that the notorious massacre of March 16, 1968 had suffered from "twenty years of cover-up and willed forgetfulness." Nick Turse, quite rightly, goes much farther in applying his indictment of "forgetfulness" to the entire Vietnam conflict, where, in the once familiar mantra of antiwar veterans who had witnessed these horrors first hand, and then publically condemned them, My Lai was just the tip of the iceberg. But by now, Turse laments, "the other atrocities perpetrated by U.S. soldiers have essentially vanished from popular memory."
Come to think of it, what hasn't? "Popular memory," assuming the concept isn't completely spurious, is at best a labile thing. Moreover, what can one expect the popular memory to retain? We might with some charity assign a collective D- to the powers of retention of historical detail informed or otherwise by our fellow Americans. The comic genius Groucho Marx devilishly exhibited this national deficiency on his television quiz show in the Fifties. When a pair of contestants failed to answer a single question correctly on some current or historical topic, Groucho offered them a consolation prize if they could tell him who was buried in Grant's Tomb, or what was the color of Washington's white horse; sometimes they couldn't.

The example may seem trivial, but the point still holds. Can Vietnam hope to fare any better if we are to depend on popular memory to remind us of its truths? What if anything beyond the most abbreviated commonplaces does popular memory recall of our prior "Vietnams" the Indian Wars, the Mexican War, the Spanish American War in Cuba and the Philippines, Central America for over a century our dark tradition of turning superior fire power against weaker nations we target for the sake of our destiny to dominate and pillage? As for Iraq and Afghanistan, the public didn't even catch them the first time around.

A fellow Vietnam veteran and memoirist John Ketwig relays an anecdote that illustrates the problem sharply. Ketwig wrote me recently of "a long ago conference at Gettysburg College [where] … the audience and presenters consisted of professional soldiers from the nearby Army War College at Carlisle, PA." During the morning session Ketwig "along with W.D. Ehrhart and other prominent Vietnam [War] authors" served up the by-then familiar inconvenient truths about the criminal nature of the war they'd recently been fighting. After which, Ketwig recalls, "an old lifer Sergeant Major spoke, pointed to us and very specifically stated, These whining, complaining Vietnam veterans will die off. I want to assure you, we have written the history of the Vietnam war your grandchildren will read.'"

If the Old Lifer imagined he was addressing History-with-a-capital- H, clearly his prediction was overwrought by wishful thinking. The bibliographic catalog is well stacked against the diehard apologists, not least the self-justifying screeds by those who cheered and managed the debacle and their revisionist disciples who have followed. The real whining would come, of course, from the likes of Robert J. McNamara. No amount of breast beating about dangers born of Cold War tensions has made what lies beneath the My Lai iceberg suddenly vanish from the historical record, to which Kill Anything That Moves now provides a striking addendum.

Obviously Nick Turse's ambition for this book ranges far beyond serving scholarly mills, or reaching whatever limited market this subject still commands among its core readers. Turse intends Kill Anything That Moves as mass-shock treatment to override the public's amnesia, aggressively demanding that we re-examine Vietnam's horrors with even greater intensity today than we did forty to fifty years ago. But how does this agenda square with the public mood? That query returns us to the chilling side of that Old Lifer's prophesy, because the views on the Vietnam War our millennials are forming today suggest strongly that the indoctrination he boasted of is well underway.

Citing a recent Gallop poll, journalist Robert Sheer reports that "a majority of Americans ages 18-29 believe sending U.S. troops to Vietnam was not a mistake… the young now approve of an irrational war in which 3.4 million Indochinese and 58,000 Americans died…" Holding steady across the age divide, "70% of those 50 or older… with contemporary knowledge…" retain their beliefs in the war's essential wrongness. This leaves Nick Turse addressing an aging choir that already knows the hymnal by rote, while among his own peers, not to mention Sheer's "18-29 year olds," his thunder confronts a formidable headwind.

When Kill Anything That Moves was launched in such a promising whirl of enthusiasm from the more respectable corridors of the Left media ghetto, it fleetingly appeared as if Turse might indeed have re-set the historical clock. But the dust stirred by that initial thrust settled quickly. And the sound of silence greeting Turse's book from the elite opinion-making heavyweights, whose reviews and news stories are essential for gaining the kind of national recognition the author and his sponsors had clearly hoped for, has been deafening.

Perhaps because so much of what Turse has reassembled already appeared if not in every specific, certainly in kind within its pages while the war was in progress, The New York Times, for example, may judge Kill Anything That Moves as twice-warmed news. Such thinking would provide the paper's managers all the sanctimonious cover they'd need to help stymie any genuinely healthy re-examination of American crimes against humanity in Vietnam, oft reported, but never officially acknowledged, much less repented. But why would the Times and the other great organs and outlets of bounded propaganda, whatever else divides them, want to re-air the real history of Vietnam today? The last thing the elite political class wants is to reconnect Vietnam to the present, certainly not in the direction that Nick Turse has failed to provoke them. They know Vietnam was not a mistake; it's a template.

To jump start a renewed public conversation about Vietnam that aims at eliminating that template as a future military option presumably Turse's more elusive and essentially unpainted target apparently demands a bigger boost than one explosive charge dredged from the archives can deliver. This assumes that the Vietnam template isn't already losing favor among national security managers. In which case, asks W.D. Ehrhart, still in the conversation long after that conference at Gettysburg, what particular end is Turse's so-called "hidden history" meant to serve beyond exhibiting "a randomly presented litany of mayhem?"
Bill Ehrhart[/URL] has spent decades since being wounded during the Battle of Hue bringing to literature, classroom and public forums in consort with a large community of like-minded veterans compelling eyewitness accounts of the systematic nature of atrocities committed by the U.S. military throughout Indochina. In a recent email, having read my essay criticizing Jonathan Shell's breathless review of Kill Anything That Moves, Ehrhart expressed the
[Image: killturse.jpeg]opinion that "Schell's reaction to Turse's book is ridiculous." What Schell gushes over as novelty, Ehrhart calls "old news." And, after examining the book, he dismisses it with a terseness both unsparing and poetic: "disjointed, disorganized, without direction."

But that's hardly the worst of it, and these next sentiments of Ehrhart's deeply echo my own. "If Turse were a true journalist and scholar, he would be shouting, Why didn't anyone listen to veterans who told these stories forty years ago?' He ripped off our history shouting Look what I discovered! and presented the case as if it's being told for the first time."

Turse's claims to originality are slippery enough, but the "rip off" exceedingly worse.

Regarding the former we are told that, as the author's research deepened over the years, he "began to get a sense of the ubiquity of atrocity during the American War," a hip way of showing he knows how the Vietnamese refer to the same conflict. And elsewhere, "…I came to see the indiscriminate killing of South Vietnamese non-combatants… was neither accidental not unforeseeable."

We might overlook this silly pretense were it not at the expense of a consciously organized veterans' resistance which arose following the belated revelation of My Lai, and operated within the larger antiwar movement where the narrative of Vietnam genocide had been long evolving. In the very language and political formulations that Turse now appropriates, often literally, a veritable legion of veterans loudly proclaimed those very revelations that the author wishes to showcases as novel insights. Moreover, we based our evidence for the ubiquity of American war crimes on our actual wartime experiences, as we helped sway the public to finally reject the war we ourselves had been fighting in. These are the unique historical episodes that Turse completely ignores.

In his account antiwar veterans appear, not as a movement making history, but as a handful of individual "whistle-blowers within the ranks or recently out of the army…" whose denunciations were "marginalized and ignored." For the rest, Turse buries our unprecedented story in a thicket of footnotes, devoid of their original contexts, and where only a disciplined scholar might be able to reassemble them into anything approximating what actually occurred. A reader may judge for herself, if the public testimonies on U.S. war crimes policies in Vietnam delivered by antiwar veterans during the final years of the conflict were, as Turse suggests, "marginalized and ignored." She might discover that the veterans were being heard at the time, if not listened to, much more than Turse is today.

Nick Turse's decision to airbrush from the record the provenance of the Vietnam war crimes narrative, and the roles of veterans within it, defies explanation. As already noted, the scope of research under display in his copious list of sources makes evident that he knew this story well. My own emails with the author, who had seen my pre-published version of this history while still in dissertation form thick and unwieldy as he rightly chided me date from 2007. And while it touches me less personally, though only slightly, Turse's use of similar methods for downgrading the stature and significance of the American antiwar movement is equally perplexing.

No old Movement hand intimately familiar with those times could fail to notice how Turse prunes the most powerful unarmed force of domestic resistance to governing authority in U.S. history to the status of a sideshow. Here's one particularly ham fisted sample of his distorting style. He characterizes as pitiful Movement efforts to reveal the true nature of the war through "pamphlets, small press books and underground newspapers," that, if even glancingly noticed by empowered insiders, were dismissed as "leftist kookery."

When one turns to the footnote for this passage to scan the names of these presumably obscure "pamphlets, small press books and underground newspapers," one finds instead that the printed matter antiwar forces produced to advance their war crimes accusations was packaged by the very titans of American trade and newspaper publishing: Random House, Simon and Schuster, Holt Rinehart, Vintage - the quality paperback imprint, Avon the mass paperback imprint of the Hearst Corporation, a couple of smaller but respected houses like Beacon and Pilgrim Press, two or three international publishers, their reputations unknown to me, and The New York Times.

I understand that many of the interested parties who may see this essay will simply react to the issues I have raised here with a resounding, "So what?" Maybe Turse got some of the story wrong, they might admit, even in ways that make him appear amateurish, if not perverse. But he nails the big picture bearing on the carnage and destruction, to a large degree intentionally orchestrated by the U.S. during its aggressive war against Vietnam. But I would take issue even with that. On the thin narrative thru-line where Turse strings the graphically descriptive details of one atrocity after another, he seems to weigh the vile handywork of individual GIs operating in the field on a par with the far more deadly toll that sprang from cold hearted policies of mass murder designed by high level commanders, political bureaucrats and academics: the indiscriminate use of artillery and air power to remove and disrupt populations, and which caused the overwhelming number of deaths and casualties among the South Vietnamese.

Turse certainly reports on, and strongly denounces, pacification's deadly harvest of non-combatants. But by placing so much emphasis on the 300 Pentagon investigations that originally ignited his zeal for this subject, the statistical significance of his soldier-initiated atrocities pales before the ranks of two and a half million draft aged men who'd served in Vietnam during the war. Let's assume those 300 cases of substantiated atrocities are actually representative of thousands of unreported heinous incidents committed by thousands of individual soldiers which I firmly believe was the case. That still would leave a substantial body of other veterans with clean hands, to the degree any soldier at war can make such a claim. Let's just say they weren't involved in rape, torture, mutilation, pre-meditated murder or manslaughter, or willful destruction of livestock or property.

A very large number of veterans therefore might feel unfairly tarred by Turse's sweeping brush, assuming they ever became aware of his book in the first place. I sense this would matter very little to Nick Turse. As he makes no effort to conceal in a recent essay, "Who Did You Rape in the War, Daddy", Turse seems to harbor a truly bizarre resentment toward war veterans, notably the many he has interviewed over the years and now accuses of not coming clean to him about the things they'd seen or done. Reading that, it occurred to me that Turse had learned very little about veterans when his research was initially focused on PTSD. He seemed to have missed the fact that deep issues of trust determine who veterans will talk to about war, and as is commonly understood, that they generally talk only with each other.

But now Turse is pissed, and he engages in a bit of shadow boxing with veterans as ghostly adversaries. "I know a lot about war without fighting in one," he defiantly lectures some unidentified veteran other. And, it has cost him. But he expresses pride because this "just isn't the sort of knowledge that's easy to come by," and who said it was? Anyway, this could be one digression too many, so read his essay cited above and judge for yourself. My own take is that Turse is suffering from the equivalent of penis envy in having been denied firsthand experience with warfare. He has had to find compensation, but his vicarious knowledge of war is made harder to come by because veterans are deceitful, and won't "come clean." Turse's judgment here is clouded by his temper tantrum.

Turse's other signal observation is that accounts of Vietnamese viewpoints and victimhood are largely absent from the 30,000 volumes covering the American representations of the war.

This is hardly surprising since the opportunities for serious research and interviewing in Vietnam are relatively recent. By the time mass tourism had blossomed there, returning veterans have typically expressed astonishment that the recovered Vietnam they find today is totally unrecognizable from the country they had once fought in. This is the Vietnam in which the kind of research Turse brags about is finally possible. Long before that, veterans established humanitarian projects in Vietnam and have for decades been in the forefront of campaigns to raise public awareness of the human suffering still afflicting so many Vietnamese who survived the war, not least the toll in human lives from herbicide poisoning and unexploded ordinance, all reaching now into the third and fourth post-war generations.
Neither Bill Ehrhart nor I, among thousands of others veterans and non-veterans alike have ever abandoned through our writing and political action, and in classrooms where we have taught or been invited to speak, our commitments to keep the flame of truth about the real American war in Vietnam from being extinguished. To that protracted struggle, Nick Turse has added his flawed and impassioned contribution. But the impulse that will lead, if ever, to the cleansing of our butchery in Vietnam from the national conscience, is unlikely to come from collective, much less individual, efforts of the progressive camp.

It is an odd fact of our culture that, when controversial topics are avoided or suppressed, they can sneak back in as entertainment. Who knows if Vietnam won't suddenly slip into the popular media slot that's been vacated by the Greatest Generation? It's a fair bet. But when, and in what form, it's impossible to predict. Will the space be dynamic enough to air the most damning facts, and here Turse's indictment could be included when the papers are served. How much energy remains in the aging antiwar crowd to re-fight these old battles? Is the Old Lifer bound to win, or will the young break the propaganda spell? And, if our side won, what would that look like? It's something to think about. We're not waiting for the Rapture. Some of us are already preparing for the opening, if and when it comes. Here's a previous essay by me and one by John Grant responding to the Pentagon's Vietnam War Commemoration Project.

Michael Uhl
is the author of Vietnam Awakening.

This article originally appeared on In the Mindfield.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The End of American Hegemony is Nigh! David Guyatt 1 3,296 21-09-2019, 04:41 PM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  November 26, 1963: LBJ signs NSAM 273 reversing JFK's plan to withdraw US from Vietnam Myra Bronstein 8 31,008 09-02-2017, 04:04 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Abu Ghraib - video of American soldeirs raping young boys in front of their mothers David Guyatt 3 4,718 31-01-2015, 05:04 PM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  The Man Who Wrote MLK's 'Vietnam Speech' Has Died, But His and MLK's Words Live On! Peter Lemkin 0 2,774 26-05-2014, 04:17 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  American Crucifixion: The American Holocaust Which Hitler Copied Adele Edisen 1 3,962 31-03-2013, 09:54 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Anniversary of Vietnamese people's victory and US defeat in Vietnam Magda Hassan 0 2,972 30-04-2012, 10:27 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Theodore Roosevelt on Film - Sound Recording Transcriptions - (American Memory from the Library of C Bernice Moore 0 2,617 14-11-2011, 04:19 AM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Hand written letter of Saddam Hussain to the American people Magda Hassan 3 3,629 04-01-2011, 01:16 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  More American history not taught in schools by Joe Perez at Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy Magda Hassan 0 5,504 05-12-2009, 06:40 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  The American Revolution Magda Hassan 1 5,817 04-07-2009, 04:13 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)