January 12, 2005
Not The Last Samurai
by Demosophist
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
The issue of Hiroshima/Nagasaki comes up whenever the left or the Islamofascists get around to listing the "crimes of the US." In the past I've tended to agree with the critics, because by and large I was as uninformed as they about what was actually going on within the Japanese High Command in those last days. Well, we now know that using nuclear weapons was probably the only way to get Japan to surrender, and even that almost didn't work. From John Hawkins' interview of Victor Davis Hanson:
John Hawkins: A couple of historical questions; One thing I seem to hear a little more these days is people questioning whether the U. S. was right to drop two atomic bombs on Japan and whether they would have surrendered without it. WhatÂ’s your view on that issue?Victor Davis Hanson: Well, they wouldnÂ’t have surrendered after the first one; we know that. They almost had a coup after the second one; there was a plot to kidnap the emperor during the peace signing ceremony. [Note: There was a History Channel episode on this plot, and had not an enterprising Japanese officer hidden a copy of the Emperor's surrender speech so that it could be played at the proper time, the plot might well have succeeded.]
I think the answer to that question is for a person to go back very carefully and look at the campaign in Okinawa which was started on April 1st and actually the United States military didnÂ’t declare the island secure until July 2nd which was just about 70 days before the surrender. If they would go back and look at that they would see that was the costliest campaign for the U. S. Marines.
It was also the costliest campaign for the Japanese, 100,000 Japanese killed, 100,000 Okinawans killed, 50,000 American casualties and wounded, missing and killed --- and that was just a foretaste of what was going to come with an invasion. If some people say, “Well, maybe we didn’t have to invade,” then they should look at what Curtis Lemay had as an alternate solution; bringing B-17’s and 24’s, Lancasters and B-29’s and putting them on Okinawa to continue the incendiary raids of Japan. That would have been a bloodbath. So any calculus you have for achieving a non-conditional surrender would have cost more lives.
If you take the third alternative and say, “Well, we didn’t have to have an unconditional surrender,” then critics should look and see what the Japanese army was doing in places like the Philippines, Korea and China up until the last days of the war. They were continuing a pattern of systematic butchery and execution. That’s really not been commented on, but they were just as bad in some ways as the Nazis and the Soviets were. So they were just a barbaric military and the only thing that put them out of business was the U. S.
I recently saw The Last Samurai and felt it one of a long line of fundamentally anti-American films eminating from the left coast, essentially siding with a totalitarian movement and ideology against the US. I don't know if the movie is historically accurate or not, but sincerely doubt it. In the early 20th Century there was an effort to reform the Japanese culture by turning the lowest class of nobility, the Samurai, into businessmen. It was partly successful, but the culture was still vulnerable to fascism and the Samurai/Warrior cult later had a resurgence leading to Japan's involvement in WWII as allies of the Nazis. The Last Samurai is an utterly foolish movie, with almost no redeeming social value. It could easily have been produced by the Japanese Fascists in the High Command as a propaganda film during WWII, except that censorship would have prevented it from being shown here.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)
Posted by: Demosophist at
02:53 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.
1
yes, and had we intervened earlier, when the Japenese invaded Manchuria, and when Hitler rolled into Czechos...oh, yeah, that would have been preemptive war. can't do that....sorry, better to let millions die, so we can appeal to liberal sensitivities.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 12, 2005 06:18 PM (t6m5j)
2
We should have been more concerned about a people that killed thousands of Americans in a cowardly sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.
When I think about Bataan, Japanese prison camps, forced sex slaves, the rape of Nanking. I believe the Japs got what they deserved. I also think they know it.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 06:34 PM (R0PwA)
3
It’s not just the Okinawa campaign, but the suicides on Saipan that cemented Washington’s commitment to using the bomb. While the suicides were hyped (not all were as voluntary as the military press made them out to be), the Japanese mainland was arming women and high school students with primitive weapons to use in suicide attacks. I've lived in Japan and I like the place, but having been immersed in their culture, I can see what a horrible mess their society must have been while ruled by the militarists in Hirohito's various governments.
There weren’t many purely military targets left by 1945 – one reason we firebombed around the Sumida River in Tokyo was that industry was spread out into many little shops and family factories, since we’d pretty much destroyed the large industrial plants. So the liberal screaming about what else we could have bombed shows once again their ignorance of history and willingness to save Japanese lives at the expense of American ones. That’s not even getting into the fact that the Soviets would have jumped off from Sakhalin and invaided Hokkaido and Northern Honshu, fragmenting Japan as they did Korea. How many Japanese would have died in that campaign and subsequent terror?
Posted by: John at January 12, 2005 08:09 PM (YFWw+)
4
I have never felt it was right to drop Atomic bombs on Japan; they are still suffering from the effects. I think what we did was so very wrong but what was worse, was rounding up Japanese-Americans, including those that were born here and just because they were of Japanese descent, taken from their homes and businesses and even losing family members and putting them into camps. In a way, it was no different than the Camps by Germany. I just feel that whole situation was a big black mark in our history. I'm sure we would have won the war anyway but I don't think the bombs or the camps put us in a good light. Glad we have learned so much since then or we'd be rounding up every Muslim who lives in this country and putting them in camps. We're supposed to be better people than that.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:42 AM (D39Vm)
5
We're supposed to be better people than that.
The details finally convinced me that Japan would not have surrendered any other way. Also note that the Russians were on Sakhalin and had they invaded from the north I doubt that they'd have left anything but devastation in their wake. Those bombs almost certainly resulted in the minimum number of casualties for both sides. Harsh to say, but the real killer there was totalitarianism's willingness to sacrifice everyone on its grisly alter, including its own people.
As for the internment, that's another issue. I just don't know much about it, but I think Michelle Malkin has made a reasonable case that it was necessary, and that it was also humane. There's just no comparison at all between our Japanese internment camps and the extermination camps of the Nazis. The closest parallel to those were the slaughterhouses in Fallujah, which would be scaled up to enormous proportions were those bastards ever able to take over the country. As for internment of Muslims in the US, I just don't know anyone who advocates that. Some have accused Malkin, but to my knowledge she's never made such a recommendation.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 13, 2005 03:38 PM (7AGFb)
6
Internment probably saved a lot a Japanese/American lives. There was cases of lynching of German Americans during WW2. As it turned out internment was not needed. Does anyone know what Japanese immigrants would have done if the Japanese invaded the west coast? What is the difference between Hawaii and California? The Jap Navy got help there. Think about it. The threat of invasion was real during the early years of the war. All races that came to America have paid a price. Maybe thats the price the Japanese had to pay. At least they didn't die in the internment camps. My ancestors paid with the revolutionary war, war of 1812, war with Spain war, Mexican war, Civil war, WW1, WW2. No one rides free. Wish to reap the benefits? Sometimes you have to pay a price. Fair or not. The truth is, the majority now come to America to reap what others have paid for.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 07:45 PM (oKjnh)
7
My $0.02:
The Japanese shelled various locations in California during WWII. There was a power plant in Santa Barbara County near the shore that had been hit (mostly superficial damage) by a submarine off the coast. There was a very real and pervasive fear of the Japanese war machine in those days. Hawaii merely demonstrated that the Anglo-Americans had anecdotal evidence to suspect Japanese-Americans. They wondered if it could happen in California as well.
Posted by: Buck Brown at January 14, 2005 06:38 PM (ZECZR)
8
Demo: the reason we didn't know about the internment camps because it was never discussed and certainly was not in our history books. But thee people were American's of Japanese, Chinese and Oriental descent.They were taken from their homes, ending up losing their homes and businesses. During WW2, many Japanese American's signed up and fough side by side with their own countrymen (Americans) and those that did, had no idea what was happening to their families,their homes and their businesses. A few years back, they were reimbursed by our govt for their losses which could never make up for all the things they really lost; the govt's fear to intern these AMERICAN'S was wrong in every way for none of them were a danger to the rest of us and they certainly did not approve of the Japanese attacking their own country - which was the United States. Just because we were at war on many fronts, including Japan,did not mean that the Japenese who lived here agreed with it and were just as shocked and disgusted as the rest of us; then they were torn from their homes and bussinesses and put in internment camps; that was not necessary for they were American's.
I understand, Demo,about the atomic bombs but I still do not agree thatit ould be done because it not only killed millions butit caused so much damage on the people and has still an affect on Children since then all the way up to today. I guess that kind of power bothers me.
I never said we should round up all the Muslims, so you misunderatood me. WhatI did say above is from WW2 internment camps and the things we learned from it will make sure there were no Muslim Interment camps although they do deserve it more than the American Japenese ever did. This was their home, not Japan.
Our enemy today are Islamic radicals and since we do have hundreds of Muslims here in the US, maybe we should put them in interment camps for our own safety. even though there may be lots of terrorists in those families. It was just a thought. And it would be easier to pick out the terrorist who's over for a visit.
Just another though,is all.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 01:48 AM (D39Vm)
9
Cindy:
Well, you're on a horse that's too high for me to assail. And we're so far removed from the WWII experience that it's really hard for any of us to judge in any realistic sense. Suffice to say that for the time being at least (and all bets are off if there's a WMD attack on the US) the basic incentives are somewhat different for us that the 1940s Americans. Intelligence provided either by coverts, or by inside people who have been turned really constitutes a critical component of the War on Terror, and any unjustifiably harsh treatment of Arabs works against that. So barring a WMD attack I think you can expect to see some significant forebearance toward Arabs in our modern society.
But be advised that Jacksonian America, once awakened, will be impossible to put down.
Also, as I recall there were really two groups of internees who were treated much differently. Citizens of the US were treated much differently that non-citizens, and a significant number of citizens chose to remain in the camps after the war even though they were no longer required to stay. Also, bear in mind that if some Japanese citizens had their property confiscated that's a separate issue. If they lost businesses, it's in teh context of emergence from a depression in which business failures were far from atypical. But I agree that confiscation of private property, to the extent that it occured, was actionable.
Finally, although I think Malkin opposes recompense of the internees I don't. One can frequently moderate the need to commit a "sin" in the fallen world by the recognition that there are consequences for doing so that one can't shirk. The ethics of what was done are in sharp contrast to "internment camps" maintained by our enemies during this period, including internment of British and American citizens by the Japanese. An no one has ever offered to compensate those people, as far as I know.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 17, 2005 03:22 PM (7AGFb)
10
Amen.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:04 PM (Vc+ll)
11
When will I be compensated for my father. He didn't get to sit the war out in a internment camp. Who payed the higher price. A Japanese American family in an internment camp or my family? When will my children be compensated for growing up without a grandfather? Everyone pays a price. The difference is us plain old white folks that have been here 300 years don't expect to be compensated. Anyone think my family didn't lose their small business? Wrong. Friggin cry babies.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:18 PM (Vc+ll)
12
"I Recently saw The Last Samurai and felt it one of a long line of fundamentally anti-American films eminating from the left coast, essentially siding with a totalitarian movement and ideology against the US." okay that line there pretty much sums up the level of your ignorance Demosophist. Gimme a break, "Anti-American"? The director of the movie Edward Zwick IS American! For christ sakes this is an AMERICAN movie! Where you get "Anti-American" out of that is beyond me.
"I don't know if the movie is historically accurate or not, but sincerely doubt it."
Well buddy the whole movie is based on the actual events of a samurai Saigo Takamori who leads the rebellion for the same reason as in the movie. and the "lowest class of nobility"? did you even watch the movie or have picked up history book for that matter? The Samurai were the ruling class of Japan for over one thousand years. and change them into "business men"? I dont think you really got the point of the movie(or watched it for that matter).[In real life] after seeing the US's warships and cannons, and seeing how weak the were economicly and militarily compared to the US and other countrys they excepted the US's ultimatum. We totally revolutionized them. We trained their soldiers, and everything. So in a way WE are responsible for them becoming a world military power during the early 1900's to WW2.
"The Last Samurai is an utterly foolish movie, with almost no redeeming social value. It could easily have been produced by the Japanese Fascists in the High Command as a propaganda film during WWII, except that censorship would have prevented it from being shown here." Umm......okay. I think the only thing utterly foolish here is you. this movie is about a people hanging on to dying ways and traditions, and how an American Captain who took part in the American's own butchery [of Native Americans] sees the beauty of their culture and becomes a part of it.
Again how you get any of that bs you totally blows my mind. and sheesh quit trying to use words that are probobly bigger than your I.Q. and start focusing on actually making a point.
btw i'm sorry if i'm given u guys a history lesson. I am doing a research paper on the Samurai culture and accidently stummbled upon this, and after reading this moron's post I had to comment and clear up the MAJOR misconceptions. plus I just really enjoyed the movie and kinda got pissed at this faild attempt at a review.
Posted by: Doc at February 14, 2005 03:44 PM (0vNaM)
13
Well buddy the whole movie is based on the actual events of a samurai Saigo Takamori who leads the rebellion for the same reason as in the movie. and the "lowest class of nobility"? did you even watch the movie or have picked up history book....
I'm somewhat disinclined to limit my view of history to what comes by way of a Hollywood movie, but I do know about who ruled Japan for a thousand years, and it wasn't the Samurai. They were, as I said, a warrior caste and the lowest echelon of the nobilty. And the plan to turn that caste into a business class at the turn of the century was quite deliberate. Lipset comments on it in his essay of Japanese Uniqueness, as does Eisenstadt. Again, do you get your knowledge of history from films?
Umm......okay. I think the only thing utterly foolish here is you. this movie is about a people hanging on to dying ways and traditions, and how an American Captain who took part in the American's own butchery [of Native Americans] sees the beauty of their culture and becomes a part of it.
I rest my case. Next you'll be quoting Ward Churchill to me. Again, this story is a narrative that willfully distorts history in order to present a specific theme not unlike that presented in *Dances With Wolves*, which is probably where you got your history of the West. I suppose you think that cartoon in *Bowling for Columbine* was historical truth too?
Gawd.
I am doing a research paper on the Samurai culture...
And what source told you the Samurai caste ruled Japan for a thousand years? Hokusai painted for the Samurai? This is what you're saying? Heh.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 14, 2005 05:57 PM (Dfdj0)
14
It may be that your historical text has conflated the role of the military caste in Japan with that of rulership, because they were the "muscle" that allowed the rulers to maintain their position. As such, they weren't without leverage (as any military caste would be), and they were definitely part of the nobility. But they weren't the ruling caste any more than those referred to as the "knightly caste" in Europe were the rulers. It was a feudal system, and the military played it's place according to feudal rules of fielty. That, in fact, was one of the few things that was accurate in the movie: *The Last Samurai*.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 14, 2005 06:28 PM (Dfdj0)
15
I think it's you who need to check your scources.
"but, I do know who ruled for 1000 years and it wasnt the samurai." It was the Shogun who himself was part of the Samurai warrior class(who did work for the emperor but was still responsible for most everything else). I dont know where you get your information because the Samruai were considered the highest class of Japanese society. They were highly respected and looked up to. I meen anybody with half and ounce of common sence can see this. Why do you think some Japanes display there ancestors armor and weapons in there home? or how the Samurai code played such a big role in WW2. because they were a very highly respected and honorable people. not the "lowest class of nobility" as you deemed it. That in fact plays a large role in the movie. The ONLY time I have heard differnt is from you. You are wrong.
"this story is a narrative that willfully distorts history"
You are wrong here as well. First off there really was a rebel leader Saigo Takamori(Katsumoto)as I said before that fought to keep the old ways and as in the movie were defeated in one last huge battle. As for the character Algaren, he is based on a French army captain who fought side by side with the samurai in the Boshin War. Yes this is not based on ACTUAL events. but it is sticking to history to a certain extent at least(more than Dances with WOlves lol). and even the battle at the end is accurate. despite being outnumber some 50-1 the Samurai still outkilled the Troops who were armed with very similar weaponry as in the movie. It is a non fiction story.
"next you'll be quoting Ward Churchill to me."
okay first off i dont know who the hell that is. and second that wasnt a quote that was from me.
"and the plan to turn that caste in to a business class at the turn of the century was quite delibrate."
Okay, first off Japan didn't want to turn the Samurai into businessman at all. They wanted the samurai dead or disbanded; they cut their salary in half, and as a final insult made it illegle to where the sword(which is a sign of their HIGH status in most cases). This is what started the rebellion. and business had little or nothing to do with what they wanted. They wanted to revolutionize their country in every way.
"I rest my case."
you never had one.
"Hokushi painted for the samurai." ok whered that come from. If you step back and take a look I'm the only one making a point here. You are wrong about the culture, and are not clear on your own points. you've been so busy trying to show me up that you forgot about your own "Last Samurai Axis Propaganda" Theory.
and stop trying to camoflauge your lack of knowledge of the culture with big words and irrelivant statements.
Posted by: Doc at February 14, 2005 08:48 PM (nZFVn)
16
Okay, first off Japan didn't want to turn the Samurai into businessman at all. They wanted the samurai dead or disbanded
Yeah, according to the movie. And one can always find an historian (like Ward Churchill) who will make whatever claim is convenient for them, but the fact is that they simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent sense to sort of "retool them." Not completely successful.
Why is it so difficult to believe that Hollywood would take an historical sequence of events and subtly distort and spin it so that their message, which was not the message of history, is what got through? As for the role of the Samurai all I can say is that if I come across the citation for the artcle I'll post it (I read it a decade ago as part of a set of articles in Doctoral program in Science and Technology Policy)... but the observation stands. In the aggregate the Samurai were the lowest echelon of the nobility at that point in history, which doesn't mean that some of them weren't above others. (And as far as I know you're right that they were a ruling caste at some point, though I'm skeptical.) Actually the movie makes it clear that their social status wasn't very high by presenting them as financially without resources, etc. (But note that the period I'm talking about wasn't the 1860s, but the turn of the century. Just prior to WWI.) What role could they play in a new westernized (non-feudal) Japanese society? What impressed me about the article (which may actually have been written by Eisenstadt, now I think of it) was that thay could just deliberately transform a troublesome social class by organizing a new function for it. Very clever. But not entirely successful.
Yes, of course they were part of the nobility. I said that. But they were a threadbare nobility by that time.
And the point I made about the transition is also valid. The elements of the old feudal culture came back and the Samurai inspired a new fascist militarism born out of that same tortured sense of honor. What do you think fascism is, if not a throwback to feudalism? Anyway, if you want to read about the sociological aspect of these events (I'm actually a sociologist, so I don't trust historians who always write the narrative that appeals to their inner child) read S.M. Lipset's "American Exceptionalism and Japanese Uniqueness." (Or the title might be the other way around, I'm not sure.)
Anyway, another movie that's distortive in the same way, since you're into verification of Hollywood's sense of history, is *The Gangs of New York*. In reality there was a very strong anti-war movement in New York City during the Civil War, and there were race riots that targetted the black population for their supposed role in bringing about the war. It's a very ugly chapter in Irish-American history that Scorcese deliberately distorts to give it a "class warfare" element, manipulated by some evil capitalists. The reality was far more mundane. Just your run-o-the-mill race prejudice, and resentment at being required to serve in a cause they opposed.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 16, 2005 08:04 PM (Dfdj0)
17
I see now that we were talking about two differnt eras of samurai. I thought you ment all through history they were the lowest class, but i see know you were talking about pre ww2 and I agree.
"They simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent since to retool them."
I see where your coming from and half agree on that. But still the Samurai were to honorable and proud of a people to just drop and change what they and their ancestors had done for 800 years or more. Maybe your right and some low ranking samurai did give up the sword. That maybe so. But the one thing you didnt mention is that there was an actual rebellion of the Samurai as in the movie, and most of which were killed (allthough from what I've read and heard they put up a hell of a fight, still outkilling there foes armed with cannon and rifle).
And I think you'll agree with me that even though the samurai caste was done and over they still highly influenced the Japanese soldiers of WW2.
"since your into verification of Hollywood's since of history,"
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not the kinda guy who will take a history lesson from Hollywood believe me(seen Zulu?lol). But I do believe The Last Samurai was intact with the history. Let me lay it all on the table:
There was a rebellion led by Saigo Takamori in the mid 1800's.
The rebellion was caused by similar things as in the movie. Salary cut, food supply cut, etc.
The character Algeran is actually based on an actual person,(the name of which I don't recall but I'll let you know sometime) who did fight side by side with the samurai(allthough this was not during the samurai rebellion but the Boshin War actually).
The Japanese Government pays America, England, France, and other countries to help turn Japan into a modern country(cannon, clothes, telegraph, military tactics+training the works).
Then with all this together the Samurai rebel, the Japanese Government sends it's new
"modern" army after the samurai, there is a big battle where the Samurai fight valiantly but are defeated.
This actually happend both in history, and largely in the movie. Give some details why you think it's not accurate.
Posted by: Doc at February 16, 2005 08:43 PM (1tfre)
18
"They simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent since to retool them."
I see where your coming from and half agree on that. But still the Samurai were to honorable and proud of a people to just drop and change what they and their ancestors had done for 800 years or more. Maybe your right and some low ranking samurai did give up the sword. That maybe so. But the one thing you didnt mention is that there was an actual rebellion of the Samurai as in the movie, and most of which were killed (allthough from what I've read and heard they put up a hell of a fight, still outkilling there foes armed with cannon and rifle).
Indeed, a bit like the Spartans at Thremopylae, the Germans and Japanese at the end of WWII, the current Jihadists. (Not necessarily in terms of effectiveness, but intent mind you.) This is one of the signals or signs of totalitarianism. One could even include the Russians at Stalingrad.
And I think you'll agree with me that even though the samurai caste was done and over they still highly influenced the Japanese soldiers of WW2.
Well, they were the direct inspiration for the Kamikaze, as well as the resistance on Iwo Jima. But ultimately there was something lacking, that ensured their defeat, something that Steven Ambrose identifies. My point about Hollywood is that their idealism is so childish that they see the Samurai as a romantic image of their own opposition to the double-edged sword of American Exceptionalism. There is something vaguely admirable about such a dedication, until you realize that it's intimately connected to the death camps and the gulags... the other side of that coin.
There was a rebellion led by Saigo Takamori in the mid 1800's.
The rebellion was caused by similar things as in the movie. Salary cut, food supply cut, etc.
Well, I wasn't really questioning the historical accuracy of the skeleton story. Note that the skeleton of The Gangs of New York is also true. There were, in fact, anti-war riots in New York City. What was inaccurate was the manipulation of the ethnic rivalries, the sort of "Simon LaGree" aspect of it, design to excuse and explain what has been an unfortunately recurring story in America: that the group at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder always resents and fights the newcomers taking their place. This isn't because of exploitation by capitalism. It's human nature.
The gist of Lipset's article, which I still suggest you read (and I'll still look for the citation of the other article) was that although there's as much literature an "Japanese Uniqueness" as there is about "American Exceptionalism," the reality is that the former isn't true, while the latter is. The Japanese, at least as it relates to their militarism, are actually like other cultures recently emerged from feudalism, including the Germans. And the American Revolution truely was a world revolution, with a slow fuse.
If your email is real, I'll send you that other citation when I have the time to find it out in the garage. It's at the bottom of some boxes that I kept from grad school. Really worth reading, because although there was a kind of relapse, the experiment actually worked in the long run. Eventually the Samurai class formed the core of the new business and technology spirit.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 17, 2005 09:57 PM (Dfdj0)
19
I liked the movie.
The Samurai were a traditional group which thought that Japan was changing too fast and in the wrong way. Omura was the one behind it and he tried to influence the Emperor's choice, which he did. Katsumoto would have halted his attack had the Emperor asked, he was only doing his duty to Japan. This shows Chu, duty and loyalty.
Katsumoto represented the traditional Japan and Omura represented the new Japan. The Samurai showed honor by not giving up. Even though, at the end, Katsumoto and the other samurai killed many of the opposing Japanese troups, they still bowed to him when he killed himself. Although many of them died by his sword, they still respected his honor and reconized that a great leader had just died and they were bowing to the lost, dead Japan.
The Samurai did the honorable thing by not giving up, they died in honor.
Katsumoto also managed to finish his poem.
I don't know if that's relevant, but that's how I saw the movie.
Posted by: Death's Scribe at May 25, 2005 08:59 PM (cDFec)
49kb generated in CPU 0.6209, elapsed 1.3609 seconds.
119 queries taking 1.3405 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 1.3405 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
