What's new

Japan Defence Forum

hehehe Japanese friends, we both allied in ww2. We both lost ww2. We both used to have allied occupation. Now Thailand has no more US bases in our land. Thanx for Vietnamese brave friend in the past. And thanx for.our royal smart political move. Im sorry Japan still have occupation force on their lands. Eh? Ryokyu Japanese land?
 
@cnleio

Honestly, what do the average Chinese feel about Japan and Japanese Self Defense Force? Thanks.
In generally Chinese think Japan is better than China, specially ppl's cultivation.

Japanese Self Defense Force is OKay, the only thing Chinese afaid it that's whether Japan military force will become a aggressive force like WWII, we admit in WWII Japan force bring great damages to China and still Chinese dislike the dark history. Now Abe government had change Japan constitution and allow JSDF fire overseas, a big change. I think Abe also wanna step in TaiWan case, it will be a conflict with Chinese core benefit. When Chinese and Japanese respect each other, we r friends.

Japan Navy warships more and better than PLAN, coz last decades China invest few funds into Navy development but Chinese is closing the gap. Japan Airforce fighters less than PLAAF, now have 600+ 4-gen fighters. Japan Army less than PLA Army, there'r too many Chinese.

Average Chinese just feel under American power and pressure, the Japan cann't change current situation just as a gatekeeper for American in East-Asia to stop China development. I just think Japan and China should cooperate to change anything and into Pacific Ocean together, East China Sea is too small.

World N.o2 and World No.3 economices should unite, the new N.o1 will be in East-Asia.
 
Last edited:
hehehe Japanese friends, we both allied in ww2. We both lost ww2. We both used to have allied occupation. Now Thailand has no more US bases in our land. Thanx for Vietnamese brave friend in the past. And thanx for.our royal smart political move. Im sorry Japan still have occupation force on their lands. Eh? Ryokyu Japanese land?


Objectively speaking, the Japanese Empire requested the access of Thailand to move Imperial soldiers through its territory so it could march onto Malaya and Singapore. Due to the problems Thailand gave the Japanese Empire in access, Japan initiated the invasion of Thailand, striking Thailand in 8 areas at once: 1) Phibulsonggram, 2) Samut Prakan, 3) Khri Kan, 4) Chumphon, 5) Surat Thani, 6) Nakhon Si Thamarat, 7) Songkhla and 8) Pattani.

Due to the overwhelming firepower of the Imperial Japanese Army, Thailand declared a ceasefire within hours of the invasion. The results of our victory terms were:

A) Thailand would become a military ally with Japanese Empire
A2) Thailand would provide transportation and supplies for the Imperial Army
B) Thailand would declare war on the allies

The Thais were wise; better to acquiesce to a ceasefire and swallow military occupation / alliance by Japan than for the Imperial Army to reign in a thorough invasion of Thailand. Which would have happened.
 
Objectively speaking, the Japanese Empire requested the access of Thailand to move Imperial soldiers through its territory so it could march onto Malaya and Singapore. Due to the problems Thailand gave the Japanese Empire in access, Japan initiated the invasion of Thailand, striking Thailand in 8 areas at once: 1) Phibulsonggram, 2) Samut Prakan, 3) Khri Kan, 4) Chumphon, 5) Surat Thani, 6) Nakhon Si Thamarat, 7) Songkhla and 8) Pattani.

Due to the overwhelming firepower of the Imperial Japanese Army, Thailand declared a ceasefire within hours of the invasion. The results of our victory terms were:

A) Thailand would become a military ally with Japanese Empire
A2) Thailand would provide transportation and supplies for the Imperial Army
B) Thailand would declare war on the allies

The Thais were wise; better to acquiesce to a ceasefire and swallow military occupation / alliance by Japan than for the Imperial Army to reign in a thorough invasion of Thailand. Which would have happened.

Correct. Im glad Thai leaders at that time were wise.
"Therefore, Thailand declared war to Allies because of Japan's will. This is because we were occupied by Japanese forece."
^
^--- Agree? If so we are all gree. You can read the bottom, otherwise skip it.


Do you see the today? I will rephase the above sentence
"Therefore, Japan foreign policy is in accordance to US will. This is because Japan is occupied by US force".
Could I say the above sentence is "The most probable explanation"?
 
Correct. Im glad Thai leaders at that time were wise.
"Therefore, Thailand declared war to Allies because of Japan's will. This is because we were occupied by Japanese forece."
^
^--- Agree? If so we are all gree. You can read the bottom, otherwise skip it.


Do you see the today? I will rephase the above sentence
"Therefore, Japan foreign policy is in accordance to US will. This is because Japan is occupied by US force".
Could I say the above sentence is "The most probable explanation"?

Your correlation between the relationship of the Japanese Empire and Kingdom of Thailand with the current strategic relationship between Japan and the United States is incorrect because of the following reasons:

1) Japan was in a state of war with Thailand. Thailand's acquiescence to the terms of surrender was to ensure Thailand's survival as an independent entity or else -- be militarily conquered by the Japanese Empire. Thailand's declaration of War to the Allies was mere political posturing on the government led by Plaek Phibunsongkhram. In actuality, Thailand's contribution to the military front was nill.

2) Japan's foreign policy is influenced by multiple factors , namely :
a) maintenance of agreements between China and Japan as set by the 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship (which was against American and Soviet wishes).
b) the status of the freedom of navigation
c) sensitive issues that regards to hegemony ; which directly is related to the 1978 TOPF.

I would even deign to say that Japan has, on its own accord, had supported an isolationist foreign policy in the past because of our relative satisfaction of regional harmony. It has only been recently that the tense situations in Asia-Pacific has been due to actions of certain powers to pursue hegemony. This, according to Japan's calculus, is contrary to the terms of agreement of the 1978 TOPF. Japanese foreign policy has shown Japan's will and readiness to implement course of action that is even contradictory to US interests. We signed the 1978 TOPF despite US' protestations. We are currently building dialogue with NK and looking to trade ties, contrary to US interests.

Futhermore, Japan has the capability and capacity to defend itself and to project power. We are not in a state of war with the United States and are thus not impressed by the United States ; but are operating through our own Constitution and independent initiatives. Thailand, on the other hand, during its military alliance with Japanese Empire from 1941 to 1945 was compelled to sign it because if Thailand did not agree, then Japan would have most probably taken Bangkok by force and the entire Thai Armed Forces would have been extinguished, as what Japanese Imperial Army had done to British Royal Army in Singapore (over 100,000), and to the American Army in the Philippines (over 110,000), and the Allied Fleet in the Java Sea, which was annhilated by the IJN in 1942.


So, i must impress upon you @somsak , that there was a significant dichotomy.


Regards,
 
Last edited:
Dear Nihonjin,

Thai people really feel good about Japan and have no historical ill-will. You may travel to Thailand and you will know that.
As history/geopolitical study, we must accept the fact or deed, historical or present.

I will show you my thought.

Since all human kind history, foriegn army on your land only means one thing: You are their colony/protectorates.
When Siam rules Cambodia, Siamese occupation force was stationed at 2 Cambodia's Siam immidiate province.
When Qing country rules China, Qing occupation force was stationed inside China heart land.
When Japan rules Manchukuo, IJA occupation force was stationed inside the newly established country of Manchukuo.
.. The list goes on.

Your correlation between the relationship of the Japanese Empire and Kingdom of Thailand with the current strategic relationship between Japan and the United States is incorrect because of the following reasons:

1) Japan was in a state of war with Thailand. Thailand's acquiescence to the terms of surrender was to ensure Thailand's survival as an independent entity or else -- be militarily conquered by the Japanese Empire. Thailand's declaration of War to the Allies was mere political posturing on the government led by Plaek Phibunsongkhram. In actuality, Thailand's contribution to the military front was nill.
Thank you for your quotation. I acknowledge our past inferior to Japan. Here your quotation fits nicely with what Japan current situation is.
Japanese Okinawa was occupied by USA during state of War with Japan. Japan's acquiescence to the terms of surrender was to ensure Japan's survival as an independent entity or else -- be militarily conquered by the US Empire.

It's as easy as that. Your love of motherland, a good thing, is blinding you from real clear world.

I see you list many thing Japan did against US will. You said some part of japanese population want to drive US bases out or Japanese soil. Why cannot your government satisfy those people?

During one of political termoil in the past, Thai people, my father generation, had driven out US bases on Thai soil. Great thanx to North Vietnamese friends.
 
In generally Chinese think Japan is better than China, specially ppl's cultivation.

Thank you, I do believe that the people in China will benefit under a healthy and economically vibrant China. Definitely, there are some issues in China such as freedom of expression. Aside from this, in my personal opinion, I think that China is lucky to have a population that, more or less, abide's by their Government's decision.


Japanese Self Defense Force is OKay, the only thing Chinese afaid it that's whether Japan military force will become a aggressive force like WWII, we admit in WWII Japan force bring great damages to China and still Chinese dislike the dark history. Now Abe government had change Japan constitution and allow JSDF fire overseas, a big change. I think Abe also wanna step in TaiWan case, it will be a conflict with Chinese core benefit. When Chinese and Japanese respect each other, we r friends.

I can empathize with the feeling of uneasiness, given our countries' history. If both our countries honor and respect the 1978 Treaty of Friendship and Peace, then I don't see any reason why there should be any reason to think our two countries will clash. I personally empathize with you with the situation of Taiwan, and I'm sure Mainlanders consider kinship and a strong cultural bond with Taiwan. We Japanese, too, have fondness for Taiwan and both Taiwanese and Japanese people have a very strong and dynamic relationship. I think that both Japan and PRC agree that there should be continued development of Taiwan, and continued prosperity for Taiwanese , Chinese and Japanese.

Japan Navy warships more and better than PLAN, coz last decades China invest few funds into Navy development but Chinese is closing the gap. Japan Airforce fighters less than PLAAF, now have 600+ 4-gen fighters. Japan Army less than PLA Army, there'r too many Chinese.

Indeed, the PLA , PLAN and PLAAF has awesome power and projection capability. May it be used for peaceful purposes and to build confidence and trust from your neighbors, including Japan.



I just think Japan and China should cooperate to change anything and into Pacific Ocean together, East China Sea is too small.

I agree, absolutely. There is much opportunity for our people to work with each other. :)

A cooperative Japan and China will lead to regional harmony.
 
Yes they will, without China helps Japanese still will kick American.

@boomslang, u lack history before WWII.
They didn't forget twice nukes coz Nagasaki and Hiroshima city held nuclear explosion commemoration each year. They didn't forget Royal Navy fleet coz just American bury their dreams in Pacific Ocean. Without ur American maybe Japan had unified Asia in WWII and wouldn't lose Manchu & Korean peninsula & TaiWan where Japanese took lands before 1941. After WWII Pacific War lost, the Japan lose all lands and interests in Asia and Pacific Ocean, for Japanese a biggest stumbling block is the America, if the sun wanna rising again they must get rid of American.

Almost everyone in this planet wanna a piece of America's @ss and U.S down too. Without American disturb, everyone has the chance to come ture their dreams including the Japan. And ur stupid just grow up another Taliban again. :partay:

We in europ dont want see USA go down. why should we.
 
The USA list it as the prime target. Your bla bla is dismissed. Beside that i dont see China as a nation of engineers. I see a nation of corrupted government officials who implement any crazy pipedream that Mao had while smoking crack.

Tell me, where did you find the information "The USA list it as the prime target"? I would like to see proof on that. Here is a hint. In nuclear exchange, the primary target is always the other country's nuclear stockpile. Secondary targets will be command and production centers with large population. A dam that is made of solid concrete construct that require a large number of your nuclear stockpile just to reach, let alone destroy that will not even affect the immediate response capacity of the opponent is hardly "primary target" material.

Also, USA, just like China, is a ICBM capable nation. Your tag is listed as Italy and Germany. Your support is listed as Japanese and Vietnam. None of these nations even have a fission bomb, let alone a thermonuclear weapon delivered by ICBM.
 
Last edited:
.... Without ur American maybe Japan had unified Asia in WWII and wouldn't lose Manchu & Korean peninsula & TaiWan....

Was China in the 'unifying' mood when Japan was corn holing Nanking ? Your quote is the most stupid quote I've seen in a long time. Hey, maybe ISIS will 'unify' the whole Middle East ? Wouldn't THAT be cool ? (Note to Mods : Along with the 'finger' emoticon, we REALLY need an 'a-hole' emoticon.)

We in europ dont want see USA go down. why should we.

Look at his post on how Japan would have 'unified' Asia during WWII. You're NOT dealing with a rocket scientist, Markus. Is it wrong to goof on these kind of people ? NAAAAAHHHHH !!!!!:chilli:
 
Last edited:
Was China in the 'unifying' mood when Japan was corn holing Nanking ? Your quote is the most stupid quote I've seen in a long time. Hey, maybe ISIS will 'unify' the whole Middle East ? Wouldn't THAT be cool ? (Note to Mods : Along with the 'finger' emoticon, we REALLY need an 'a-hole' emoticon.)



Look at his post on how Japan would have 'unified' Asia during WWII. You're NOT dealing with a rocket scientist, Markus. Is it wrong to goof on these kind of people ? NAAAAAHHHHH !!!!!:chilli:


Smart! :tup: Devide and Rule words for Asia people!
 
Tell me, where did you find the information "The USA list it as the prime target"? I would like to see proof on that. Here is a hint. In nuclear exchange, the primary target is always the other country's nuclear stockpile. Secondary targets will be command and production centers with large population. A dam that is made of solid concrete construct that require a large number of your nuclear stockpile just to reach, let alone destroy that will not even affect the immediate response capacity of the opponent is hardly "primary target" material.

Also, USA, just like China, is a ICBM capable nation. Your tag is listed as Italy and Germany. Your support is listed as Japanese and Vietnam. None of these nations even have a fission bomb, let alone a thermonuclear weapon delivered by ICBM.

The USA advices Taiwan to attack the 3 gorges dam in case that China attacks Taiwan.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Storm across the Taiwan Strait

That way even Taiwan is able to simply end China in a pretty easy way. You dont need a nuclear weapon to destroy his dam. Its pretty easy. A small group can even achieve it with simply blowing the flood gates up.


And i see this as legit target too. Face reality, evry industrialized nation is able to destroy this dam. Its no match for germany or italy or japan. Vietnam i'm not so sure. My sampathy for china is very low.
 
Misawa Launches First Global Hawk


Global%20Hawk.JPG



The RQ-4 Global Hawk made its first operational flight out of Misawa Air Base on June 6.
The flight marked two milestones: the first time an RQ-4 mission has flown out of Japan, and the first operational mission flown out of a jointly-used civilian and military airfield.

According to detachment officials, combining and coordinating civilian Japanese airline traffic with military entities typically isn't done. "It's important because it proves that remotely piloted aircraft and manned aircraft can operate on the same airfield together despite their variety of missions or purpose."

The Global Hawk's ability to fly in adverse weather conditions was spotlighted, taking off in minimum runway visibility and maximum cloud coverage.

In fact, all prior scheduled flights were canceled during that day due to severe inclement weather, letting the Global Hawk roam the skies uninhibited.

"Weather conditions like we experienced June 6 would have normally canceled all airfield flying," said Master Sgt. Michael Adcock, 35th Operations Support Squadron weather flight chief. "Heavy fog conditions were present above the airfield which would significantly impact flying, but the Global Hawk successfully operated in these adverse conditions."

With the 35th Fighter Wing's weather flight providing expert assistance to the Global Hawk team, the RQ-4 is able to takeoff efficiently, even in the worst weather.

"We have members of the weather flight work with us in person to advise us with real-time forecasts and weather patterns," said the Detachment 1 commander. "They're absolutely critical to our mission."

The RQ-4 Global Hawk uses technology like radio altimeters and global positioning satellites, allowing the RPA to "sense" when it's aligned with the runway and when to engage its brakes when landing.

"That's the advantage of the RQ-4's automated taking off and landing; the weather visibility isn't really necessary," said the Director of Operations for Detachment 1. "We don't need to see in order to land or takeoff."

Extensive coordination was made between the Global Hawk team and the Japanese government prior to coming to Misawa. Agreements with the Japanese Air Self Defense Force's air traffic control team at Misawa were ironed out, allowing the RQ-4 to fly within the local airspace.

"There was a lot of planning that went into the early agreement stages," said the director of operations. "Once we came to an understanding and the letters of agreement were in place, going out and flying became a simple matter."

With the RQ-4 Global Hawk poised to stay at Misawa throughout the summer season, future missions and exercises are expected, further strengthening the relationship between the U.S. military and Japan.

"With our team operating here for the foreseeable future, it's going to allow for positive interoperability with the JASDF," said the Detachment 1 commander. "I think that's a good step in the right direction for a long term partnership."


Misawa Launches First Global Hawk
 
Japan Loosens Guidelines for Defensive Operations
Ban Put in Place After World War II
Jul. 1, 2014 -
By PAUL KALLENDER-UMEZU


TOKYO— Following an extraordinary meeting Tuesday, the Cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved a constitutional reinterpretation allowing Japan a limited right of collective self-defense, overturning a 67-year ban on allowing the Japanese self-defense forces to assist close allies such as the United States if they come under attack.

The Cabinet resolution came just a few hours after Abe’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) reached an agreement with political alliance partner New Komeito on a series of restrictions on the use of the right. Komeito, which is backed by a pacifist-leaning lay Buddhist organization, insisted on the restrictions before allowing the LDP to make the change in interpretation.

According to Tuesday’s historic reinterpretation of Japan’s famous Article 9 of its US-imposed 1947 constitution, which forever renounced war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes, Japan will be now able to exercise the right only if the following three conditions are met:

■ Japan can come to the aid of an ally with which it has a “very close relationship” if the threat also poses a threat to the constitutional rights to life, liberty and happiness of Japanese citizens.

■ There is no other diplomatic or negotiated means to protect both that nation and its citizens but through the use of military force.

■ The use of military force is kept to a “bare minimum,” the interpretation of which has yet to be defined.

In a news conference aired on prime time TV, Abe stressed that in his opinion, the reinterpretation was the minimum necessary to establish Japan’s right to defend itself and its allies in case of a real threat to both and several times emphasized that it would not allow Japan to become involved in military conflict to defend other nations overseas.

“No matter what the circumstances, I will protect Japanese people’s lives and peaceful existence,” Abe said.

“There is no change in the general principle that we cannot send troops overseas. There is a misunderstanding that Japan will be involved in war in an effort to defend a foreign country, but this is out of the question,” he said. “It will be strictly a defensive measure to defend our people. We will not resort to the use of force in order to defend foreign forces.”

The move comes just six weeks after a specially-convened panel recommended that Japan allow limited rights to collective self-defense, but comes on top a decade-long quest by Abe and conservatives in the LDP to remove what proponents of the change say is a fundamental contradiction in the interpretation of Article 9, while assuring the principle of democratic control over the use of force.

On May 15, the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security set up by Aberecommended reinterpretation of Article 9as long as a number of “brakes” were applied, similar to the three conditions imposed by Komeito, with the main difference being that any use of force would now be the minimum necessary, rather than “proportional.”

Other key provisions will include: Any exercise of the right will be considered only if a close partner specifically requests military support from Japan; that Japanese forces cannot enter the territory of another country, widely interpreted as South Korea, without express permission of that country; and that the use of military force is approved by the Diet.

More fundamental to this, proponents of the reinterpretation have argued that the ability to exercise limited rights of collective self-defense removes a major anomaly in Japan’s ability to defend itself, as it is seen as an inherent right of every sovereign state under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Under a 1972 interpretation, Japan denied itself this right, a decision that Shinichi Kitaoka, former Japanese ambassador to the United Nations and one of the major architects for Tuesday’s change, has called “ridiculous.”

New Komeito party chief Natsuo Yamaguchi told Japanese media on Tuesday that his party could accept the reinterpretation as the new restrictions imposed by his party emphasized a basic stance that the change was necessary to improve Japan’s ability to defend its citizens rather than getting involved in the conflicts of other states — a veiled reference to the United States. He also stressed that any decision to exercise the right would have to be approved by the Diet, ensuring civilian control, attempting to allay fears of Japan’s militaristic past when the armed forces seized control of Japan’s foreign policy resulting, ultimately, in the Pacific War.

New Komeito’s pacifist sensitivities on the issue are informed by a deeper debate in Japan on the country’s security policy as it faces the threat of a more assertive China and instability on the Korean Peninsula against widespread popular sentiment in Japan that it not be involved in military engagements of any kind.

On Sunday, in an event that shocked the nation, a man set himself on fire outside Shinjuku Station, one of Japan’s major rail transport hubs, in protest against the impending decision. Tokyo has also witnessed by a series of unusually large public demonstrations, one of which was staged outside the prime minister’s residence. While results vary on the specific questions and who is conducting the questionnaires, public opinion polls consistently show either a small majority or a large minority of Japanese oppose Tuesday’s decision. At best, support by the Japanese public is lukewarm.

Japan military expert Christopher Hughes, a professor of international politics and Japanese studies at the University of Warwick, said the reinterpretation amounts to a “very important turning point for the start of radical change in Japan’s security policy.” He called the decision an important “breach” of the principle of Japan not getting involved in military conflict, that may lead to further changes in interpretation later.

“Naysayers have long tried to argue that Japan’s anti-militaristic culture will resist this entirely, or if it comes, as they have been forced to come to terms with reality, that it will be so bereft of content that it will be meaningless. They have clearly been wrong on the first count and are more or less wrong on the second,” he said.

Hughes agreed that New Komeito had managed to add important constraints on the exercise of the right with the three new conditions, which is likely to keep any fighting by the Japan Self-Defense Forces limited to regional contingencies.

“However,” he continued, “the LDP has got what it wanted, which is the breach of the ban, and enough leeway for future interpretation for collective self-defense to lever open the way to other types of contingencies.”

Narushige Michishita, director of the Security and International Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, said the decision poses a crucial test for Japan’s international reputation as a liberal democracy. Intense negotiations will unfold in this fall’s upcoming Diet session as lawmakers decide how to enshrine the decision on a legal basis.

While more hawkish LDP members may see the move as the minimum action to take Japan out of its isolationist stance, Michishita said the decision represents the first in a stepwise approach toward Japan feeling its way on the international stage as a country that can contribute to regional and global security.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Japan was widely derided for its “checkbook diplomacy” as, despite being the world’s second largest economy, it was completely unable to join the US-led coalition to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait, instead providing a large financial donation only. A quarter-century later, Japan has the chance to prove that it can be a “positive force for international security and peace,” he said.

“We can say now that we have the right. But it’s only a right and exercising it is a different proposition. We have to make sure to use the right in a positive and constructive manner and show that we are no longer a clumsy, sloppy and selfish country,” Michishita said.

Next, the Diet will have to debate a huge raft of legislation that will involve scrutiny of 17 major laws and specific rules, restrictions and permissions for eight major scenarios in which the right may be exercised, including protecting Japanese citizens aboard US military ships, protecting and or refueling US ships in combat, using armed force to intercept and inspect suspicious vessels, intercepting ballistic missiles in flight targeted at the US, protecting US ships under attack in waters in Japan’s vicinity and, for example, minesweeping.

“The precedent-setting and breach of the ban will not mean the floodgates open, and Japan will still remain highly cautious, plus more collective self-defense legislation to come will limit things, but nevertheless the levies are starting to leak significantly,” Hughes said.

Japan Loosens Guidelines for Defensive Operations | Defense News | defensenews.com
 
The USA advices Taiwan to attack the 3 gorges dam in case that China attacks Taiwan.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Storm across the Taiwan Strait

That way even Taiwan is able to simply end China in a pretty easy way. You dont need a nuclear weapon to destroy his dam. Its pretty easy. A small group can even achieve it with simply blowing the flood gates up.


And i see this as legit target too. Face reality, evry industrialized nation is able to destroy this dam. Its no match for germany or italy or japan. Vietnam i'm not so sure. My sampathy for china is very low.

Yeah, did you happen to notice the source? Think-tank called "Center for Nonproliferation Studies", aka, I have an opinion and I am not responsible of whether its works and what its consequence is. I am also guessing you have no idea what a thermonuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missile is. It is unbelievable in this day and age, but your response has really left very little room for alternatives. And please, your sympathy (BTW, it is spelled s-y-m-p-a-t-h-y) is worth slightly above Justin Bieber's personality, but less than George W Bush's IQ. However, since you are ardent believer that "if you just do XXX, China will collapse", you really do have my sympathies and condolences.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom