Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

January 12, 2007

Haunted by Cambodia

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 1:07 am

If Iraq is to be compared to Vietnam, how relevant is Cambodia?

Ever since the news of the genocidal scale of mass murder in Cambodia reached the West, I’ve been trying to figure out how to relate it to my previous opposition to the Vietnam War.

At first it was self-exculpatory: No Vietnam War, no Nixon illicit secret bombing/destabilization of Cambodia, thus no Khmer Rouge take-over, thus no genocide. That was my story and I tried sticking to it for a long time.

But it’s more complicated than that isn’t it? Especially if you’re familiar with what’s come to light in the past decades from former Soviet archives about Vietnam. (You have read the Soviet archival documents haven’t you? Otherwise spare me your comments). When 2 or 3 million are murdered, it’s worth examining the causes further, especially in light of current potential parallels.

My opposition to the Vietnam war, developed during my college days was based on the oversimplified premise–which turns out, by most serious accounts, now bolstered by the former Soviet archives–to be false or seriously flawed.

My belief and that of most of the anti-war movement–that the North Vietnamese regime represented an indigenous, nationalist movement expressing the Vietnamese peoples centuries-long struggle for independence from foreign control–was only half-true at best.

There was a germ of truth in it, but more than a germ of foreign control in Hanoi, whose government was in fact a Stalinist puppet state of the Soviet Union (here’s where the diplomatic cables in the former Soviet archives are so important and dispositive). A Stalinist regime in Hanoi, which, as soon as it took over the South, established a gulag system of re-education and punishment camps for all who didn’t toe the line. Hundreds of thousands died in the camps, and hundreds of thousands, maybe more died as “boat people” escaping the unreconstructed Stalinist regime.

Put that in the context of another set of numbers–the 50 million or more murdered, starved, or Gulaged to death by Stalinist police states in the 20th century, and opposition to the war in Vietnam isn’t the moral slam-dunk it once seemed to be.

The Vietnam war, like the current one, was horribly mismanaged, yes. The war was, like this one, productive of horrific number of casualties among innocent civilians, but Vietnam wasn’t all as simple as I thought of it in college. One could still call it the wrong war at the wrong time fought by the wrong tactics, but one can’t portray the “foe” as somehow virtuous.

And Cambodia: the genocide there was as unimaginably horrific as any genocide in that genocidal century. Would that genocide have happened if the U.S. hadn’t so precipitously scurried out (under the aegis of a funding cut), leaving behind one half a nation hosting Stalinist gulags, and a good portion of a neighboring nation, Cambodia, rotting away in mass graves. Was the Cambodian genocide an inevitable consequence of the Vietnam war? Would it have happened however we managed to leave Vietnam? I don’t know, but it’s a question worth thinking about.

The “world community” did nothing to prevent genocide in Cambodia, in Rwanda, nothing to stop Saddam’s mass murder and the ethnic cleansing that bordered on genocide (did you hear his tape recorded cold blooded dismissal of the murder of thousands in the “Chemical Ali” trial?) in Iraq. And of course it’s doing nothing to stop it in Darfur. Whose responsibility will the aftermath of the (I think inevitable) U.S. pullout from Iraq be?

On the eve of the current war when it wasn’t clear to me whether we would actually go to war or not, I wrote, with habitual historical pessimism “war or no war, things are likely to get worse”. And I endorsed John Kerry in 2004 because I thought he would be smarter about the whole deteriorating situation. But things have gotten worse. Perhaps they haven’t for the Kurds, but for most of the rest of Iraq yes, and it’s our responsibility for the “mistakes” however you define them.

But does the fact–that it’s our responsibility for getting into this position (my view of the “surge” plan is the same as my view at the opening of the war: things are likely to get worse)–does that exempt or exculpate us from the responsibility to prevent the possible genocidal–certainly ethnic cleansing–consequences that will follow our withdrawal? Is there any way we can prevent those consequences?

And if not us, then who? The world community? I don’t have the answers, but someone has to ask the question. How do we prevent another Cambodia?


  1. Good post Ron. It’s nice to see the past revisited from an honest perspective.

    In answer to your question one place to start would be with honest reporting. From Duranty in the 30’s to Castro “The Democrat” in the early 60’s to (insert your favorite Middle East press scandal here) the press has been reluctant to report the truth. They’ll go to great lengths to protect left-wing tyrants, even if it means overlooking, even lying about the death of millions as Duranty and the NY Times lied about events in the Ukraine.

    If the American public knew what the truth as it was happening, instead of having to decipher MSM reporting, our leaders would have much stronger support in undertaking the correct course of action.

    Comment by ElGaboGringo — January 12, 2007 @ 5:34 pm | Reply

  2. I share your assessment of the terror and collapse after our withdrawal. There are a few questions I have for you.

    One: Give our record of incompitence, can we do what is needed to be done?
    Two: Given the near universal hostility toward the American military presence in Iraq, do we have the right to conquer a people against their will in order to help them?
    Three: Do you know how pretentious it is to refer to Russian archives and act as if anyone who hasnt read them, has no right to speak?

    Comment by jimmy — January 12, 2007 @ 7:02 pm | Reply

  3. I was just a kid during the Viet Nam war, but I really don’t remember any but the most dewy-eyed kooks (Jane Fonda leading that parade)portraying the Viet Cong or their Stalinist masters in China and the USSR as “virtuous”. That simply wasn’t a big part of the obvious national narrative, and in any event was irrelevent.

    It was and still is foolish to think that military force can be used for anything other than destroying. It cannot be used to create nations or anything else that will not come into existence under their own initiative. By way of comparison, our military actions in Panama and Yugoslavia occurred in the context of local conditions that under their own energy and direction were able to establish something resembling stable democratic societies, albeit with some assistance from (or maybe in spite of) relatively focussed military action.

    Iraq, unfortunately is a totally different situation. Some internal equilibrium will be reached (as it did in Viet Nam and Cambodia) but it will be messy and bloody. There is no other course for this poor country to go given its long, complex, muddled history.

    US military force can play a role in achieving the least bad outcome, and it is so obvious I don’t understand why there is any real debate about this. Military force can only destroy, and the US excells in destruction from afar by the highest tech means. The only realist role for the military in this region is to play referee – ensure the integrity of Iraqi borders, and suppress/destroy any concerted attacks from organized internal or external forces that can be identified and attacked. This will at least set some very basic security conditions under which the inevitable internal processes will occur. Anything resembling the organized genocidal programs of Cambodia / Rawanda / Nazi Germany etc could be at least disrupted if not completely supressed by the use of such force, which would also likely receive near universal approval.

    Comment by Thomas G. Ballou — January 12, 2007 @ 7:49 pm | Reply

  4. We probably can’t… given the current constraints,of having to make terribly complicated moral decisions, with all of the facts barely known, or even worse, just barely hinted at.
    About the most we can do without trampling heavily on the tender sensibilities of the oh-so-righteous and terribly-just, is work out where we shall park the resulting refugees.
    (My first big political committment when I was in college, circa 1975 was as a volunteer to help sponser Vietnamese refugees… all those who came out on crammed helicopter flights and on terribly overburdened boats in 1975; finding them homes, and jobs and teaching English… all around, a new life. Yeah, the Vietnam War was a world-class cluster. I noticed at the time that none of my co-volunteers included anyone who had protested the Vietnam War.
    Make of that what you will…)

    Comment by Sgt. Mom — January 12, 2007 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  5. If we do pull out our troops from Iraq, we seriously have no business putting them in Darfur to stop genocide. We can’t wash our hands of Iraq yet turn around and accept responsibility for Darfur. Darfur is the cause celebre. But, if ending genocide in Iraq is not a just war then the cause celebre is more a fool’s errand.

    Comment by Doc75 — January 12, 2007 @ 8:06 pm | Reply

  6. Well, we can always rediscover the Nazi Holocaust and spend the next five or six years talking about The Horror Of It All. That’s what we did after the butchery in Cambodia.

    Comment by PersonFromPorlock — January 12, 2007 @ 8:19 pm | Reply

  7. And I endorsed John Kerry in 2004 because I thought he would be smarter about the whole deteriorating situation.

    Are you sure it wasn’t simply because you are a Democrat? I don’t know your party affiliation, but I have my suspicions.

    As to Vietnam, I remain the only person I know who actually read a history of Vietnam back when we got involved. Everyone had opinions, but it seems that few had reasons for their opinions beyond peer approval.

    Comment by chuck — January 12, 2007 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  8. The hard answer? The best way to prevent slaughter on the scale you mention is simply not to leave. I hate to say it, but there it is. The slaughter in Vietnam happened because we left. Had we stayed, the North would never have been able to take over. Destabilize? Sure. Launch terror attacks? Absolutely. But not invade.

    In fact, the Vietnamese case was simpler. We could have left and still helped South Vietnam survive, had the Congress not forbid any military support of that government. The South Vietnamese army fought well and effectively, when supplied with US air power. Only the complete and intentional abandonment of Vietnam caused the slaughter there.

    In Iraq, sadly, that option (pull-out but back the Iraqi forces) doesn’t yet exist. In 1972, Vietnam no longer faced a credible internal insurgency. The Viet Cong was destroyed as an effective force, and the North had moved NVA units in to take their place. Iraq isn’t there yet. Iraq is really more at the Tet stage: the insurgency is launching massive attacks to show that predictions of their demise are wrong.

    Tet was disasterous for our morale and home perception of the war, but it was absolutely ruinous for the Viet Cong. If we stay, and if our military and political leaders make at least mediocre decisions, I think the insurgency in Iraq will go the same way. They can’t sustain this pace for all that long. Their hope is that we can’t either or that Sunni-Shia violence will get bad enough to be self-sustaining.

    The way to beat that plan is to stay and fight, and to expand the troops if need be to take and hold ground. If we do that, then we can limit (though not eliminate) the violence and bleed the insurgency while allowing parts of the country with less violence to continue development.

    The real downside: even if this works, it will probably take 5-10 years. We would have been in Vietnam into the 1980s, just as we propped Korea up well into the ’80s. And down the road, Iran and Syria will resort to increasingly obvious interventions as the Iraqi insurgency fails. We must be willing to deter them by force, if need be.

    But if you really want Iraq to avoid a bloodbath, that’s the kind of commitment you have to be willing to make. It doesn’t guarantee success, but it gives the best hope.

    Comment by An Unpractical Man — January 12, 2007 @ 8:29 pm | Reply

  9. Good column. These questions are getting mighty short shrift in the national debate. It would be good to get a level deeper into what happened in SE Asia in the last half of the 70s. Here’s a Wiki on the Cambodian genocide, for starters.

    Comment by buddy larsen — January 12, 2007 @ 8:43 pm | Reply

  10. How do we prevent another Cambodia?

    Clue: If Nixon and Kissinger dragged Cambodia into the Indochina War, it’s equally clear that GloboLeft dragged the U.S. out of Indochina, delivering little Cambodia to the anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist Killing Fields.

    Comment by gringoman — January 12, 2007 @ 8:56 pm | Reply

  11. Thanks for saying this. Not many have the courage to do so. I actually think a very similar point was raised by Joan Baez (to her credit) as far back as the seventies or early eighties and Jane Fonda called her a stooge and fascist.

    Comment by Kenneth Nunney — January 12, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Reply

  12. and hundreds of thousands, maybe more died as “boat people” escaping the unreconstructed Stalinist regime.
    In 1979 I heard a U.S. Navy intelligence estimate: there were at that time approximately 300,000 boat people in various camps. These were the ones who survived the trip. It was further estimated that 60% of those who left Viet Nam in boats did not make it. That was as of 1979, only three years after the fall of South Viet Nam. You can do the math.

    Comment by anonymous coward — January 12, 2007 @ 9:59 pm | Reply

  13. Thank you for the difficult questions, and for not attempting to supply easy answers. Of course the U.S. had some responsibility for what happened in Cambodia. Nixon’s limited incursion and the bombing campaign did strengthen the hand of Pol Pot. What I found to be absolutely unforgivable, however, as a very young man when I witnessed some of the remnants of Pol Pot’s handiwork, in Thailand in the early 80s, and endeavored to learn more about what had happened, was that powerful American politicians, had actually portrayed the Khmer Rouge benignly or even positively, as the Khmer Rouge prepared their final assualt on Cambodian society. This was either disgracefully ignorant, or disgracefully cynical.

    I think it likely that the United States in Iraq has accelerated a process that was nearly
    inevitable; the violent convulsions of a contrived state comprised of peoples in longstanding conflict with one another, and only held together by a ruthlessly violent despotic regime. If a Cambodia-like bloodbath ensues, can we at least be spared the kind words about the butchers prior to the opening of the abattior? Perhaps if the aspiring slaughterers can be described honestly it is more likely that their butchery will be impeded, if only marginally.

    Comment by Will Allen — January 12, 2007 @ 10:34 pm | Reply

  14. How do we prevent another Cambodia?

    The typical antiwar pundit would reply, “Where’s Cambodia?”

    White people didn’t die there, and so it might as well be on the arse end of the Moon for all that any Westerners know about it.

    Comment by DensityDuck — January 12, 2007 @ 10:43 pm | Reply

  15. Thanks, Ron, for forcing yourself to courageously, publicly think through the implications of the outcome of the Vietnam war for the current Iraq conflict. I suspect a lot of those who loudly denigrated America’s motives then are having some regrets now about the things they said at the time. But human nature being what it is, yours will be a lonely voice in admitting you might have been mistaken.

    Comment by WasatchMan — January 13, 2007 @ 12:08 am | Reply

  16. We, know with what McLaughlin would call “metaphysical certitude”, that if we leave Iraq precipitously, that Iraq will descend into chaos.

    That being the case, how can we leave without being victorious?

    Comment by Frank DiSalle — January 13, 2007 @ 2:21 am | Reply

  17. You have read the Soviet archival documents haven’t you? Otherwise spare me your comments

    I haven’t. But here is someone who has. It doesn’t quite match your description.

    The author finds that the USSR attributed no geostrategic importance to Indochina and did not want the crisis there to disrupt détente. The Russians had high hopes that the Geneva accords would bring years of peace in the region. Gradually disillusioned, they tried to strengthen North Vietnam, but would not support unification of North and South. By the early 1960s, however, they felt obliged to counter the American embrace of an aggressively anti-Communist regime in South Vietnam and the hostility of its former ally, the People’s Republic of China. Finally, Moscow decided to disengage from Vietnam, disappointed that its efforts to avert an international crisis there had failed.

    Review of ‘Confronting Vietnam: Soviet Policy toward the Indochina Conflict, 1954-1963’

    Unfortunately the book cited in the link descrbies Soviet policy only up to 1963, before the US put signfiicant levels of troops (as opposed to “advisers”) into Vietnam. Introducution of troops, massive regime threatening US “escalation”, post-JFK, forced Hanoi, which few deny was already Stalinist, to become increasingly dependent for military supply and policy decisions w/r/t the US, on Moscow which increasingly controlled Hanoi’s policy. The subsequent cable traffic I’ve read bears out that after massive US investment in the outcome in Vietnam as part of the Cold War struggle agasint Moscow, Hanoi increasingly became a pawn in the superpower game for Moscow. So from my reading: Stalinist domestically up to ’63, Soviet-dependent puppet in foreign policy afterwards.

    Comment by Tom_Dubya — January 13, 2007 @ 4:19 am | Reply

  18. Ron,

    good text, but one thing:

    “The Vietnam war, like the current one, was horribly mismanaged, yes.”

    So how would you manage a war? No loss of life, no blood, no mistakes, no setbacks, no chaos and all enemies neatly captured and prosecuted in a court of law?

    Have you heard about Dunkirk, Operation Market Garden and Omaha Beach in World War II? The trench warfare of World War I?

    “War is a series of catastrophes that results in victory.” — Georges Clemenceau

    Comment by KH — January 13, 2007 @ 8:02 am | Reply

  19. Good post Ron. I have certainly rethought this issue too concluding many years ago that if I had any idea of the national disunity it would bring I would have supported the war in Vietnam. Like Chuck above I felt an obligation to read about the war to see if my judgment that we were just getting suckered into a French colonial mess was justified. Bernard Fall’s books certainly supported this perspective. But I also was a small volume on the political and social history of Vietnam put out by the CIA (under Ike) in about 62 or 63. It convinced me – among other things – that the Vietnamese were strongly nationalist toward all foreigners but most of all toward the Chinese. I felt we could have worked with the North by using their centuries of deep hatred of the Chinese to set them as a Yugoslavia like bulwark against China. I too later came to see the NV as too Communist to do business with – despite being able to deal with Ho Chi Minh during WW2. By ’68 I was still against the war, but less so and had a rising dislike of both sides. When we withdrew I was saddened and disgusted. As to Cambodia our actions may have triggered some of the potential for genocide in Cambodia, but it was Cambodians who did this to each other just as it is Iraqis who are committing the mayhem in Iraq. It seems to me it is always worth remembering that the primary responsibility rests with those who do the killing.

    Comment by yankeewombat — January 13, 2007 @ 10:30 am | Reply

  20. Compare the U.S. situation in South Korea in the mid-1950’s — when exhausted from the occupation of that nation and disgusted with the dictator in charge of our nominally “democratic” parter, the U.S. withdrew all military support. The NoKo communists invaded within months. Refugees flooded into neighboring Japan, leading to racial unrest, a resurgence of right-wing military influence in THAT nation and further escalation terminating in a world wide conflagration that …

    Oh wait. That dog DIDN’T bark.

    Well, how ’bout the more recent parallel of the mid 1990’s when the US, disgusted with the occupation of the former Yugoslavian areas of Bosnia, finally withdrew. The Adriatic flooded with boats full of refugees, headed for Albania, Greece, Italy and destablizing.

    Oops. ‘Nother quiet dog.

    Uhm. How ’bout when the U.S. allowed Castro to kick the U.S. out of Cuba? Ah. Finally. Barking boat people.

    Even, to a certain extent. when the U.S. military scaled back from the Phillipines. There again a large ex-flux of workers fled that nation, economic refugees seeking higher paying jobs all over the world — and de-stabilizing local economies.

    I can’t think of one single instance where the U.S. military STAYING has caused one-tenth the world wide harm that a U.S. military withdrawal has initiated.

    Now, whether the harm to the rest of the world is worth U.S. blood, treasure and honor to prevent, is a different question. But surely, from a coastal, liberal, cautionary-principle point of view, if EVEN ONE LIFE can be spared by leaving the peacekeepers in place, staying the course, supporting our allies, etc — then the costs (borne by, after all, mostly by other mothers’ sons from Idaho and Alabama) is worth the price.

    Comment by Pouncer — January 13, 2007 @ 10:30 am | Reply

  21. “Ever since the news of the genocidal scale of mass murder in Cambodia reached the West, I’ve been trying to figure out how to relate it to my previous opposition to the Vietnam War.”

    Ummm… you caused it? Personally? With your own ‘moral’ choices, votes and actions?

    You and McNamara, baby, with the forty-years-late regrets thing. Does a lot of good now.

    Love the self righteousness. It must be great never to have to reflect on your past, it being so perfect and all.

    Comment by Anonymous — January 13, 2007 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  22. I dont understand why our gov. is supporting the current cambodian regime hoy san is a scum sucking b-strd,kills anyone he doesnt like.

    partial to the communists ,a dictator,subjugates his own people
    has his foot on the oil profits with half the country starving.

    I realise with tyland going muslim we need freinds in cabodia,but maybe the thinking is backwards?

    If we support a dingleberry like this what kind of example is it to
    the peole of that region?

    We dont look better than the compeating muslim gov. in tyland.

    ps. why is blatant lieing by reporters not punishable by law?

    Comment by james — January 13, 2007 @ 11:32 am | Reply

  23. Unfortunately the book cited in the link descrbies Soviet policy only up to 1963, before the US put signfiicant levels of troops (as opposed to “advisers”) into Vietnam.

    Doesn’t change the fact that Soviet intentions were relatively benign until the US build-up.

    Comment by Tom_Dubya — January 13, 2007 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  24. I think the commenter who suspected you were a Democrat hit the nail on the head. But more importantly, you have the courage to admit you were wrong.

    But it doesn’t end there. You were a dupe. Someone who’s convictions were formed from other peoples lies and deception. You believed them and tried to convince others you were right?
    Is that what you are doing now? is your lack of support or faith in our Presidents plan not a re enactment of that flaw in your judgement?
    I am discouraged by how few have given Bush’s plan any chance of success. I believe it has great possibilities and the Democrats are utterly fearful of the consequences of victory.
    The enemy is not without his own difficulties. We think their supply of fighters is endless and unbeatable. Not true. We have a vast array of resources and they have a dwindling few. I like our chances and the world will be amazed when the unexpected occurs.

    Comment by Anonymous — January 13, 2007 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

  25. Maybe by the 60’s North Vietnam was no longer an indigenous, nationalist movement, but in 1946 it was, and had the French freed the country instead of trying to maintain a colony, the whole tragedy could have been avoided

    Comment by Howard — January 13, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  26. Your assumption about Vietnamese situation back then is somewhat simplistic. I’m Vietnamese and I have relatives fought in both sides. And both side are virtuous!

    I can tell you that 99.99 % of Vietcong didn’t know about Stalinist regime, the gulag and the social, economic disorder of Communism. They only saw the effectiveness of that ideology in guerilla warfare so they adopted it. I knew that the overwhelming majority just wanted to get on with their life AS BEFORE THE WAR and that was it. They didn’t fight the war to radically change the society into Communist state.

    Oh Gosh, they were wrong!

    Comment by Virgin Man — January 13, 2007 @ 2:13 pm | Reply

  27. I dont understand why our gov. is supporting the current cambodian regime

    Lesser of two evils?

    “Perfect” isn’t often a choice in geopolitical terms.

    Comment by Purple Avenger — January 14, 2007 @ 2:18 am | Reply

  28. Virgin Man,

    I hear you. Tragically, the greatest dupes of Hanoi and the Communists were not American liberals and college kids, but the Vietcong guerillas of the South. U.S. soldiers respected “Charley,” knowing what a fighter he was. (I had a most unusual breakfast once with the Vietcong in the Mekong Delta jungle, during 1973 “Ceasefire.” Spirited bunch, and amazingly disciplined, even though so many had been killed off in Tet ’68.)

    Comment by gringoman — January 14, 2007 @ 10:00 am | Reply

  29. Ron,

    You’re a bit too easy on your (former) self.

    Genocide is what always happens when Communists take over. (Russia in the ’20s; China in the ’40s; Korea in the ’50s; Eastern Europe after the war; etc.)

    The educated college crowd at the forefront of the Vietnam anti-war movement knew this — or could have known it if they’d cared to.

    But they didn’t care. They had “other priorities”.

    And the same moral “hollowing-out” seems to be happening again — driven by the same people 30 years older — but not 30 years wiser (yourself obviously excepted).

    Well I admire your prescience Tom Paine (real name? if not why not?), if in fact you knew all these things in the 60s. But I’m not sure I’d agree 1) that in the 60s the full horror of the gulags was known (this was pre Solzhenitsyn, pre-Robert Conquest on the Ukraine, pre Cultural Revolution crimes themselves). I would say it was possible to see police states in the instances you mention but I wonder if in some of your examples (Korea, Eastern Europe) you are “defining genocide down” according to the commmonly accepted definition of the term. This does not excuse the failure to recognize the fact of police state murders. But the anti war movement believed it was opposing another kind of police state, the one in South Vietnam Buddhist monks burned themse;ves todeath to protest. Ignorance is no excuse, but to imply or impute countenance of genocide back then is unfair, I beleive.

    Comment by Tom Paine — January 14, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  30. For another view of the war “from the other side,” I found “A Viet Cong Memoir” by Truong Nhu Tang to be pretty eye opening. He was the VC Minister of Justice, entering the Viet Minh about 1954. He finally, and his post-NVA victory portion of the book fits into this discussion, got on a boat and fled Vietnam, realizing it was really all about the North Vietnamese coming south to conquer the South Vietnamese. The NVA tossed many a Viet Cong in the “re-education” camps with the former ARVN, and Troung, after about a year in office, was pretty much told he was merely a figurehead, and all orders came from Hanoi.

    Gerat post…

    Comment by xformed — January 14, 2007 @ 4:47 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: