Mom & Pop America got very tired of seeing their kids getting killed for no discernible reason. They saw the protest in a new light, and joined with a few million young people and the dreaded "Leftists" in the protests that had been going on for years. Thousands of returning vets also joined in. Walter Cronkite's expose' was also a factor; he was regarded as "the most truste man in America" at that time. He saw the truth when he went to Vietnam and reported it. Upon returning from Vietnam after the Tet offensive, he broadcast his opinion that it was time to negotiate an end to a war he felt America could not win. President Lyndon Johnson said, that night, after seeing Cronkite, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." After Cronkite gave his opinion, many reporters started reporting what was really happening rather than the canned version. Johnson declined to run again, clearing the way for Nixon, who wasn't going to be the first President to lose a war, so he ignore the reality and kept the war going until it was obvious to the vast majority of the US? that we were not winning, nor were we going to win. The politicians read the handwriting on the wall. The Winter Soldier event also made a significant difference.
To be fair, it was not Johnson's or Nixon's fault we were fighting in Vietnam. Unlike the present situation, those Presidents inherited an unwinnable war. Neither, however, had the courage to get out of it.
If you have to name one person who ended the war, Cronkite is as good an answer as any, but the truth is that millions of us did.
Of course, you will hear differently from others, and will also hear how we were winning the war, but that certainly isn't true. Just as today, we created more enemies than we killed. As long as that happens, it is impossible to win a war.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?
By '1968, North Vietnamese morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap (Senior General Vo Njuyen Giap) and NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a "failure", they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a "surrender."
At the time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard "Walter Cronkite" (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the NVA. They were completely and totall amazed at hearing tha the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, the NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated that riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to General Giap, these distorted reports were insperational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in America would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield.
Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of '1967, beginning of '1968. Today, there were 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall Memorial that was built with the donations made by the American public.
Although General Giap did not mention each and every protester's name in his book, many of us will never forget the 58,000 names on the Wall. We will also never forget that names of those who helped in placing those additional 48,000 names there: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Walter Cronkite, and other's.
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
quote:
Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
The protesters’ myth is really more interesting. With every passing year one gets the impression that virtually all Sixties types were at antiwar protests. (They were all at Woodstock, too.) It has become unassailable gospel that the protests were noble and effective. They may have been nobly intended, but there is nothing but aging egos and pure wind to sustain the notion that they were effective in stopping or shortening the war.There is evidence, however, that the protests lengthened the war and that more people were killed on account of them.
How so? Political scientists talk about the phenomenon of a “negative follower group,” which is defined basically as any group that ticks others off to the point that they become the friend of that group’s enemy. All the data we have from the time, and since, show that the obscenity, illegality, and raging anti-patriotism of the antiwar protesters made them the most hated group in America during the late 1960s and early 1970s. When police beat up protesters in the park across from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968, most people who were watching on television sympathized with the police.
The backlash had significant repercussions on the national political scene. Without the antiwar protests, which were associated in the minds of the “silent majority” with a militarized black power movement that had somehow metastasized from the civil rights movement, George Wallace could never have become a national political figure, if only for a while. Nor would Richard Nixon have won the White House in 1968. Furthermore, the antiwar movement undermined the Democratic Party and hurt Hubert Humphrey’s bid for the presidency in a very tight election.) The political reaction to the radical antiwar protests aided both the Johnson and Nixon administrations’ efforts to manage growing public disquiet over the war.. More Americans would have opposed the war sooner had they not been put off by radical protest tactics.
The truth is that the antiwar movement actually helped elect Richard Nixon to the presidency not just once, but twice. By 1972, the movement had gained enough power in the disheveled Democratic Party to see that George McGovern was nominated instead of a more mainstream candidate who might have kept the party’s labor and middle-class constituency intact. And who believes that a Humphrey administration or a Humphrey-like Democratic administration that would have begun in 1969 or 1973 would have fought the war in Vietnam with the intensity that the Nixon administration did, looking for a “peace with honor” that fell to ashes on April 30, 1975?
quote:
Yes, the American people did turn against the war, but not because of protests in the streets. They turned against it because eventually the costs seemed to outweigh the benefits. Moreover, they turned against it when the leadership of the country lost its will to continue. QUOTE] Before Lyndon Johnson’s famous March 31, 1968, speech throwing in the towel — personally as well as in terms of Vietnam policy— no poll showed that a majority of Americans was against the war. Indeed, what the administration feared most was increasing pressure to escalate.
[QUOTE] A Newsletter of FPRI’s Center for the Study of America and the West
Mythed Opportunities: The Truth About Vietnam Anti-War Protests
Gene Kuentzler must have a hard time making up his mind who was at fault, and when, too.
Human Shields, Copyright 1997, by Gene Kuentzler, published at Vietnam Veterans' War Stories, 1997, URL: <"http://www.war-stories.com">. Human Shields is the type of letter most Vietnam Veterans will relate to and associate with. I post it at War Stories because it helps to understand the anguish and conflict U.S. troops experienced when confronted with enemy soldiers in civilian clothing. It also reveals mankind's brutality toward mankind. Not posting it would be to ignore the fact that the purpose of an army of any nation at war is to kill people and break things. The Vietnam War was very successful in executing that purpose. It is my contention that had the United States government in power in 1965 permitted the U.S. military to conduct the war in the spirit the Gulf War of 1991, the below casualties for combatants and civilians would be less than a third of what actually happened! The President of the United States that I hold accountable for denying a swift military victory, and the below statistics, is Lyndon Baynes Johnson: Combatants Killed in Action: 1,382,430 Combatants Wounded in Action: 1,772,465 Combatants MIA/POW: 2,503 (Allied Forces)
* Vietnam Govt estimates killed in Vietnam War, 1960-75: Combatants (all sides) - 2,000,000 est. Vietnam civilians - 2,000,000 est. [For a detailed list of battle casualties, review, Body Count) - WarStories.com -------- I'm Gene Kuentzler, Vietnam Veteran, 19th Combat Engineer Battalion, S-3 Operations 1966-1967, and I will tell it like it is. This factual description of what really happened during TET of '68, when my 173rd Airborne Infantry brothers were fighting Communists in the Central Highlands of Vietnam, proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that our beloved liberal mainstream media are Communist sympathizers. CBS stands for Communist Broadcast System.
Hanoi John Fonda Kerry, Tom Hayden, Hanoi Jane, and all the rest of the spoiled naive hippies who assisted the Communists in defeating America on the streets of the good old U S of A, when we actually had them already defeated in the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam, should hang their heads in shame. The simple fact that the Cronkites, Rathers, Jennings, Brokaws, Clintons, Fondas, Kerrys, Haydens, and all the rest of these traitors who cannot see the forest for the trees, are allowed to run free, knowing that they have committed treason, and used lies and deception to do it, is a testament to just how free we as a nation are. This American draws the line at treason, however, and doesn't consider it freedom of speech or any other positive spin the liberals want to put on it.
We have allowed our media to spin us into losing wars (Vietnam and Korea), electing traitors (the Klintonistas), persecuting heroes (Senator Eugene McCarthy), stepping on our Constitution (anti-gun laws, McCain-Feingold, socialist taxation, etc.), and basically dividing us through class warfare to the point where we are so divided, we cannot move forward. Why we are listening to these liars who are working from the same playbook they used during the Vietnam War is beyond me!
The liberal media even control presidential debates. In the debates of the 1992 election, there were three candidates involved, G. H. W. Bush, Ross Perot, and Klinton. In the debates of 2000, there were only two, G. W. Bush and Al Bore. Even though he fought the decision in court, candidate Ralph Nader was not allowed to debate. Ask yourself why the media permitted Perot into the '92 electoral debates but would not allow Nader into the 2000 debates.
The answer is simple; Perot removed conservative voters off of G. H. W. Bush thus assisting Bill Klinton to get elected with a non-majority of electoral votes. We are still paying for this media-perpetrated assault, remember September 11th? In 2000, Nader would have taken many of the liberal votes from the Sore-Loserman ticket, so he was kept out of the debates. - Media Matters
Uh...he does know that the hated Commies didn't take over Hawaii or California, doesn't he? And "Red China" has more capitalists than the entire population of the US? -------- Then there is this piece of information that may be of interest.
A few weeks ago in a column about Kerry, I referred to what has turned out to be an "urban legend." Specifically, based on a "news" item that appeared on NewsMax.com, I repeated a reference to a volume of memoirs supposedly published by North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap in 1985 as the source of an assertion by Colonel Oliver North. After a reader requested a reference to Giap's 1985 "Memoirs," I did research that convinced me no such volume exists. - Washington Dispatch, March 2, 2004, commentary by Greg Lewis
I should point out the following: Another site claims that Giap made the comments in his book, "How We Won the War." NewsMax has been shown in a few of these threads to, uh, not be too concerned about the veracity of their articles. - DG -------- Some e-mail entries on the site Indie Media - General Giap
Gary Sudborough 28.Mar.2004 17:16
The bogus Giap quote has been repeated as gospel in numerous articles, blogs, commentaries and pseudo-news reports criticizing John Kerry. In the past General Giap is also alleged to have made similar statements about Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite, though there is no evidence that he did.
The fact is, there is no credible evidence that General Giap ever considered surrender an option during the Vietnam war. ---
Giap's comments
John Doe 14.Jan.2005 21:38
In General Giap's book "How we won the war" Giap refers to the "Anti-war friends" in the US as being instrumental for the cause. Though Giap doesn't mention Kerry or Cronkite, and I recently read and interview which does mention Fonda's name. But that's no news; I mean she went up there to pose for pictures whith the communist North and even renounced the US during the war. - Indy Media -------- A little more on Giap -
After the loss in the Red River Valley, Giap adopted the philosophy that the Communist forces could afford to lose longer than the French, and later the Americans and South Vietnamese, could afford to win. Giap was able to convince his troops that they might have to fight and sustain heavy casualties for two or more decades to achieve victory. - Carpe Noctem -------- From a 1996 CNN interview with Giap -
The Tet Offensive is a long story. ... It was our policy, drawn up by Ho Chi Minh, to make the Americans quit. Not to exterminate all Americans in Vietnam, [but] to defeat them.
It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory. For a big battle we always figured out the objectives, the targets, so it was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war. But what was more important was to de-escalate the war -- because at that time the American were escalating the war -- and to start negotiations. So that was the key goal of that campaign. But of course, if we had gained more than that it would be better.
And [after Tet] the Americans had to back down and come to the negotiating table, because the war was not only moving into the cities, to dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. And that's why we could claim the achievement of the objective. --------
Another site, one definitely not a Liberal based site, has the following series of e-mails -
General Giap / Vietnam / Walter Cronkite -- Dakota Freedom, Sat, September 13 2003, 7:43:10 Has anyone confirmed what Gene Kuentzler says is true about General Giap's statements; if so it should be advertised much more.
And a response -
Date Posted: Tue, September 16 2003, 1:30:23 Author: Wayne Gregory Subject: Re: General Giap / Vietnam / Walter Cronkite In reply to: Dakota Freedom 's message, "General Giap / Vietnam / Walter Cronkite" on Sat, September 13 2003, 7:43:10
By the end of 67 there were 20,000 casualties (deaths), not 10,000. 1968 was the heaviest toll on life for us and the peak of the Vietnam War. Approx. 17,000 casualties of which approx. 10,000 were Soldiers and 5,000 Marines. 67 toll was approx. 11,000 as was 69.
On a personal basis, I don't care for Cronkites apparent liberal turnabout during the war and today. He comes across too Monday morning quarterback, like he was the all knowing reporter in those days. Hardly. But let's remember reporters are reporters and report. Sometimes sensationalized and reported with their eyes with honesty on the acre they cover. I think there's a drive within them to paint the dark picture sometimes. Reporting was hazardous duty in Nam as noted by the book Requiem for both sides.
We see the same paralel today in Iraq to some degree with Nic Robertson, who I think does an outstanding job, but they accentuate the casualty sometimes without looking at objective and accomplishment. Often in Nam, you would see Koppel or Rather 20 miles from a battle or firefight and ducking. But they were there, so give them credit.
I personally felt a turn for the worse by late 67 patrolling Quang Ngai and Quang Nam. The enemy had become more brazen, more of them and I didn't feel victory in the air but more war. Just my perspective from the ground. Booby traps, land mines, and open warfare. I could not see an end in sight. If anything was flawed and caused us to sign a bogus peace treaty, it was strategy, from the beginning.
No response spoke to the original question, "Has anyone confirmed what Gene Kuentzler says is true about General Giap's statements; if so it should be advertised much more." I wonder why tat is. -------- Apparently, the only source about Giap's alleged comments were NewsMax, Gene Kuentzler, and one other poster. Many mentioned what NewsMax said or repeated what Kuentzler said. No other media nor any other person has indicated that Giap said what was claimed. His previous words, and his words in the CNN interview indicate that he felt that he accomplished what he thought he would in the Tet offensive.
Scotty, both you and Kuentzler are certainly entitled to your opinions. But we all are entitled to the same set of facts. I know that you complain that I always attack your sources, but what I "attack" is the information presented as fact. The US government says Kuentzler is wrong in the figures he uses, and, of all the news sources in the world, only NewsMax has Giap saying what Kuentzler claims. One site, apparently one used by Marines, asked for an additional source for Kuentzler's claims, but no one responded with one.
If you want to believe Kuentzler, and believe that Walter Cronkite, voted in several polls as "the most trusted man in America" back in the 60s and 70s, was a traitor, go right ahead.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Walace drew enough racist votes to ensure Nixon's victory; no connection between black militants and war protesters was necessary.
Nixon was quoted as saying that he wasn't "going to be the first President to lose a war" so he wasn't going to end the war in his first term. The "eastablishment" candidate was Ed Muskie, who blew it all by himself (with some help from Nixon's dirty tricks team), and McGovern was the sacrificial lamb put up tp run against Nixon. Having a VP candidate who had electroshock treatments probably turned off a few voters. He was replaced, but the damage was done. Humphrey didn't stand a chance. Only Ted Kennedy could have beat Nixon, but he took himself out permanently with Chappaquiddick. When Wallace was shot, most of his supporters went to Nixon; Democrats were "too soft on Blacks" for his crowd. What it boils down to is that no one could have beat Nixon in 72. The really funny thing is that Nixon's crowd didn't need to bug the Democrats; they were going to win anyway. But, like most thieves, they found it too hard to do things legally. Funny how those things work out.
That's my opinion. I am sure that, for once, you will take a fairly good source (yours) over one based on opinion (mine). But you forget, I was there in 68 and 72.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Ellen Madera writes again (October 7) of “General Vo Nguyen Giap’s 1985 memoirs” as her source to say again that the North Vietnamese were preparing to “negotiate surrender” until they heard CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite’s “faulty news release concerning the Tet Offensive (which began January 30, 1968).” She also repeats “anti-war protests” encouraged the North Vietnamese to “keep fighting on.”
quote: Ellen Madera writes again (October 7) of “General Vo Nguyen Giap’s 1985 memoirs” as her source to say again that the North Vietnamese were preparing to “negotiate surrender” until they heard CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite’s “faulty news release concerning the Tet Offensive (which began January 30, 1968).” She also repeats “anti-war protests” encouraged the North Vietnamese to “keep fighting on.”
Let's look a a bit more of Scotty's source, shall we?
Ellen Madera writes again (October 7) of “General Vo Nguyen Giap’s 1985 memoirs” as her source to say again that the North Vietnamese were preparing to “negotiate surrender” until they heard CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite’s “faulty news release concerning the Tet Offensive (which began January 30, 1968).” She also repeats “anti-war protests” encouraged the North Vietnamese to “keep fighting on.”
I was intrigued by Madera’s persistence. I am personally familiar with the Vietnam War and its literature and I know well the assertions concerning Cronkite as well as those condemning “anti-war protests.” But it seemed to me that if General Giap had linked the reversal of a North Vietnamese intention to “negotiate surrender” to protests and media accounts of the Tet battle in 1968 it would be sensational news.
Why wasn’t I informed?
Indeed it would have, if it were true. A lengthy Internet search, however, fails to identify any “1985 memoirs” or autobiography by General Giap.
Giap is a prolific author but most of it is Party Speak, the bureaucratic jargon of a 93-year-old communist apparatchik. One lengthy bibliography lists 22 books and pamphlets from 1955 to 1996, but there are no publications dated 1985 (http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/faculty/moise.htm, which is the Web site of Professor Edwin E. Moise of Clemson University).
Several sites, however, show vigorous Internet exchanges which are similar to Madera’s assertions. In May 2004 General Giap commented on the matter at a celebration of the 29th anniversary of the fall of South Vietnam and the international news wire Reuter’s reported his comments. Giap thanked anti-war movements everywhere and for all time (my words) to the extent that such actions frustrate and defeat efforts of American governments — no mention of Cronkite or Kerry.
Like I said, thanks, Scotty.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Exactly what facts are you referring to? Some of the things you have presented have been shown not to be factual, and the purported statement by Giap has no reliable documentation.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
If you have to name one person who ended the war, Cronkite is as good an answer as any, but the truth is that millions of us did.
Well, since I brought his name up originally, thank you for the mention. But, the fact of the matter is, the topic is so complicated it might well take 1000 posts and references to a massive bibliography on the subject. It is a history that goes back to Truman and Eisenhower. Kennedy too. Could the war have been won if limits had not been put on where and when engagements could occur? Perhaps. A good friend of mine flew F-4s there, and his blood pressure went up just talking about the "limited war." As for politics, both parties had made large changes in the 60s and 70s. The Goldwater section was rendered personae non grate. And I would disagree with DG's assessment of McGovern as a sacrificial lamb. His wing of the party took it over; he wasn't led kicking and screaming to the convention. Vietnam ended essentially, because no one in the US wanted it anymore.
Posts: 7646 | Location: On Vacation | Registered: 06-06-02
October 15, 1969 - The 'Moratorium' peace demonstration is held in Washington and several U.S. cities.
Demonstration organizers had received praises from North Vietnam's Prime Minister Pham Van Dong, who stated in a letter to them "...may your fall offensive succeed splendidly," marking the first time Hanoi publicly acknowledged the American anti-war movement. Dong's comments infuriate American conservatives including Vice President Spiro Agnew who lambastes the protesters as Communist "dupes" comprised of "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals."
JR, I didn't mean to imply that McGovern was "led kicking and screaming" to the convention. Many wanted the nomination, but at that time, the Democrats couldn't have beaten Nixon, and most Democrats knew it. But someone had to be the niminee, and a few wanted it. The real Left of the Democratic party wanted McCarthy, but he wasn't buying it again.
"Vietnam ended essentially, because no one in the US wanted it anymore."
I agree, but what turned Middle America against the war? In my opiniom, it was Mom & Pop seeing their kids, their neighbor's kids, their grandkids, going off to a war (and some coming back in boxes), but not seeing progress in that war. It was hearing about the hundreds, sometimes thousands, of the enemy killed every day, but no reduction in attacks. Note that one Marine (Most of the posters in that forum seemed to be Marines.) in a post that I quoted said,
"I personally felt a turn for the worse by late 67 patrolling Quang Ngai and Quang Nam. The enemy had become more brazen, more of them and I didn't feel victory in the air but more war. Just my perspective from the ground. Booby traps, land mines, and open warfare. I could not see an end in sight. If anything was flawed and caused us to sign a bogus peace treaty, it was strategy, from the beginning."
Remember, these guys came home, and they talked. Many started looking like the protesters. Many joined the protesters. Some started vets' organizations against the war. Mom & Pop started to realize that those radical, long-haired hippie freaks just might have a point. I worked in a very blue-collar tavern at that time, and saw those changes. Most of the customers were grunts in WWII. It was slow, but there was a change in how those guys felt about the war and the protesters. The insults and derision changed to, at first, a tacit coexistence, and then to asking questions because they knew I paid attention to the details of the issues.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Probably North Vietnam's Prime Minister Pham Van Dong (who is NOT Giap, who you originally claimed to have made statements of which there is no evidence) felt that the protesters supported the idea that the US had no business getting involved in a civil war. Maybe he was a student of history and knew how the US viewed France talking to the Confederate states during our Civil War.
Scotty, it's 40 years later, and you still don't get it. We didn't belong there. We lost, and, Su-prise Su-Prise Su-prise, Hawaii wasn't overrun with Commies. California just got weirder, but wasn't overrun by Commies either. (In case you haven't noticed, the current governor of California is the son of a former Austrian Nazi. I don't think he has any Communist sympathies.) The guys who sent you there lied. Some Americans take vacations in Vietnam. China has most-favored-nation trading status with the US. Americans vacation in China. It's over, man.
If you need to blame Vietnam on someone, blame Eisenhower, blame Kennedy, blame Johnson, blame Nixon - they sent US troops there. Blame France for bailing, blame Charles de Gaulle. Don't blame the people who were trying to get you out of there. That's like the junkie in detox blaming the doctors for what he's going through.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
We didn't belong there. We lost, and, Su-prise Su-Prise Su-prise, Hawaii wasn't overrun with Commies. California just got weirder, but wasn't overrun by Commies either.
It may suprise you , but I never knew a soul that thought we would have to fight them in Hawaii or California.
quote:
Some Americans take vacations in Vietnam. China has most-favored-nation trading status with the US. Americans vacation in China. It's over, man.
I know it is over, but there is still hard feelings between those of us who were there, and the long haired hippie protesters. Too much was said about our military, who were dying serving this Country.
I still consider a lot of the "protesters", Cowards, who were afraid to fight, but were ashamed to admit it, and tried to hide their cowardice in the manner of being against the war. I don't mean all, but I know a few personally.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty,
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
