By This General is just repeating a belief that I have personally had Japanese people express to me:
JAPAN was not the aggressor in World War II, according to the country’s air force chief.The essay was authored by General Toshio Tamogami, chief of staff of Japan’s Air Self-Defence Force, and won the top award in an inaugural contest aimed at describing “true views of modern history”.
“Even now, there are many people who think that our country’s ‘aggression’ caused unbearable suffering to the countries of Asia during the Greater East Asia War,” said the English-language version of the essay.
“But we need to realise that many Asian countries take a positive view of the Greater East Asia War.
“In Thailand, Burma, India, Singapore, and Indonesia, the Japan that fought the Greater East Asia War is held in high esteem.
“It is certainly a false accusation to say that our country was an aggressor nation.”
The Greater East Asia War was a term used by Japan to describe the conflict in the Asia-Pacific theatre, emphasising that it involv ed Asian nations seeking independence from the Western powers.
The essay, entitled “Was Japan an Aggressor Nation?”, was posted on the website of a Japanese hotel chain which organised the contest. [News.com]
Having been to and knowing people in some of the countries this General mentions, particularly Indonesia and Singapore, I don’t know anyone that looks favorably upon the Imperial Japanese of World War II. Does anyone else? For visitors to Japan the best place to see the Japanese perspective on World War II is by going to the highly controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo.
The World War II exhibit is quite provocative. According to the museum, World War II is known as the Asia Co-prosperity War where the Japanese single handedly liberated one Asian country after another from foreign colonial occupation and the Asian people were all happy to be liberated. No mention of the atrocities committed by the invading Japanese troops. Additionally the museum blames the US for the attack at Pearl Harbor. Since the US implemented a trade embargo on the Japanese, the militarists felt that an attack by the Americans against Japan would only naturally come next. The museum even alleges that the United States even had a plan to attack Japan in the works and would have been executed if Japan had not pre-empted the American attack by conducting the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The American President Franklin Roosevelt was committed to an attack on Japan as a way for the US to escape the Great Depression. One theme I have picked up on at the museum is that every attack the Japanese conducted was only executed because of foreign colonizers threatening Japan and its neighbors. Japan never wanted to colonize any country, they just wanted to liberate Asians from foreigners.
This is of course nonsense. I posted before on this, but the Japanese felt modernization of Japan and the colonization of nearby countries were the best way to expand Japanese power and to compete against western rivals. The Japanese had no altruistic reasons of freeing oppressed Asians from European colonizers; it was simply about building Japanese power and influence and the attack on Pearl Harbor was where they over reached in spreading their power and influence.
Wisely the Japanese Defense Ministry appears ready to sack the general for his ridiculous comments. With today’s economic issues what politicians wouldn’t want to start a spat with Japan in order to deflect attention away from problems at home? By sacking him I doubt this will grow into any larger diplomatic issue. Nevertheless this persistent historical revisionism of Japanese World War II history is something that should be condemned and Korea and China have every right to do so you just don’t need to bring out knife in the gut man, flag eater man, finger chopping ajumma, the Dokdo Riders, and my favorite of all bee man to do so.
12:34 pm on November 1st, 2008 1
Why sack the General? At least he has the guts to speak his mmind while in uniform. Most American Generals cowtow while in uniform and then speak out (usually for a fee from the highest bidder)after retirement.
Reply
6:15 pm on November 1st, 2008 2
the degree of historical amnesia put forward for the sake of national myths in east asian countries continues to startle me.
Reply
6:43 pm on November 1st, 2008 3
Revisionist historians are rampant in Asia, but our own history leaves a lot to be desired too. I guess the truth is just too much of a burden to shoulder.
Reply
7:01 pm on November 1st, 2008 4
I suspect the major war with China was just to free the Chinese from their own people? Of whom the Japanese killed a (lowest estimate) 10,000,000 innocent civilians.(high estimates 40,000,000) Japan has never understood nor been taught their own history during the pacific war. They have been taught that they were the victims of the only nuclear bombing in the world and many Japanese perceive their country more as a victim than as a perpetrater. The Japanese suffered 143,000 civilian casualties during the Pacific war (including both atomic bombs and the fire bombings), yet were responsible for the cruel and brutal death of 10s of millions of innocent civilians. Incomprehensible, that they still believe they were wronged.
Reply
7:13 pm on November 1st, 2008 5
CALMSEAS, don’t be so quick to discard American history in the world. We have been the greatest force for good since the world began. Where would Europe be now without the US? Asia? Communism? Even Chinas economic boom owes itself to the US. Where would “human rights be?” Human rights didn’t exist before the US introduced them. The greater good the US has brought to the world have far outweighed the few stumbles during our lifetimes. If you listen to those who hate the US, then we are to blame for everything. You need to open your eyes to what has really happened in the world because of the US, then judge. The US is still an ideal worth fighting for.
Reply
8:51 pm on November 1st, 2008 6
Gerry:
I was referring more to our own history as taught in our schools…i.e. as it relates to the discovery of America, the Native Americans, etc.
As for how the rest of the world views us…to Hell with them. We ARE the one guiding light that was built on an “Idea” of freedom. The rest of the world would have already destroyed themselves if it wasn’t for us.
Reply
9:02 pm on November 1st, 2008 7
Gerry, I think your reading of US history is off. It’s surely wrong to say that human rights didn’t exist before we introduced them. Didn’t the Founding Fathers derive the greatest part of their understanding of liberty from European philosophers such as John Locke?
Anyway, in regards to the post, it’s important to remember that many Japanese people don’t agree with the general’s view of history. The atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima, for example, is quite reflective on the point of needing to understand the suffering that Imperial Japan inflicted. And many Japanese people, as far as I have personally experienced, are fairly apolitical regarding foreign policy.
Reply
9:59 pm on November 1st, 2008 8
I understand much of our own history as it is taught in our schools and am not in complete agreement as to how it is being taught by the apologetic teachers of today. That perhaps is a different argument. As for the rest of the world and the people who hate what America stands for, I agree, the hell with them. But I believe that given the chance the same people would grab a US passport in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one.
Reply
10:08 pm on November 1st, 2008 9
“Additionally the museum blames the US for the attack at Pearl Harbor.”
The Norks would call this “pulling a Park Wang-ja.”
Who says the Japanese and the Norks can’t find common ground?
Reply
10:20 pm on November 1st, 2008 10
Korea Beat, It was President Carter who introduced “Human Rights” to the world as a matter of foreign policy. And it was probobly the only thing he did right. He put the ideas into action. Ever since then you can read in the newspaper everyday stating “human rights” issues in the world. (John Locke, as much as I admire him, didn’t have the same effect). I would be interested what the results of a survey would be in Japan as to how the current population feels about the Pacific war. I think a large percentage would feel they were the victims and were not doing anything wrong. Not a majority, but a large percentage. 25-35%?
Reply
2:16 am on November 2nd, 2008 11
Well, lets say that OPEC had an feul embargo against the USA. Would that be an act of war? The USA was starving Japan and freezing her economicaly. Granted it was because Japan invaded Manchuko but, heck, the US has invaded Iraq, should all the Oil states stop selling oil to the US? My feeling is that if what the USA did to Japan was done to the USA, there would be no doubt that the USA would go to war.
Reply
2:46 am on November 2nd, 2008 12
LOP, how do you rationalize the Japanese attack on the USS Panay in 1937, nearly 4 years before the Allied (not U.S) oil embargo against Japan:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incident
Reply
8:54 am on November 2nd, 2008 13
LOVEROFPEAS. The US, British, Dutch oil imbargo was only put in place after Japan had invaded Vietnam and halted all foreign assistance to China through Haiphong. (Including food, fuel and material) It was squeezing Japan to stop the war in China. But, this only happened after the attack on the USS Panay, and the rape of Nanking by the Japanese. World opinion turned greatly against the Japanese at that time. The Japanese attack on Pearl harbor was a gamble the Japanese took to keep the US away while they plundered Asia. And OPEC did have an imbargo on shipments of oil to the US in 1972. We didn’t attack Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Venesuela.
Reply
9:51 am on November 2nd, 2008 14
Gerry, didn’t Woodrow Wilson beat Carter to the punch with the “4 Points” speech? And what about some of the UN’s foundational documents explicitly referring to human rights? As far as I can see, the idea of universal human rights gained traction in both Europe and North America with the publicization of the horrors of the war, especially the Holocaust, and didn’t come from America alone.
Reply
10:21 am on November 2nd, 2008 15
The “rape of Nanjing” Gerry? Iris Chang may have fooled you but learn a lil more about that “rape” before you start freaking out.
Oh and Darfur is getting raped… I guess the US will be sending troops. I mean you can’t “rape” a place without the US kicking arse.
Yep, Panay, yep, yep yep.. Panay was a HUGE. Damn 3 people were killed. I guess again according that that logic the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy deserved a war?
I guess the “dirty japs” knew used satalies and computers to figure out that that little PT boat was American. No that was the Americans.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
Reply
10:31 am on November 2nd, 2008 16
GERRY read some more about the embargo. If the Arabs stopped sending all oil, ALL OIL, to the US, which they didn’t, their would have been trouble. The USA had a real embargo agaisnt Japan.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Learn a lil about history. Quit listening to your bar buddies about history.
Reply
12:07 pm on November 2nd, 2008 17
“The ‘rape of Nanjing’ Gerry? Iris Chang may have fooled you but learn a lil more about that “rape” before you start freaking out.”
Another “Revisionist Historian” at work trying to convince us that what is historically documented did not really happen…
Hey “LoverOfPeas,” did the the Japanese conducting Chemical and Biological experiments on the Chinese while they were only vacationing in Nanking…if we were to believe you, not happen either?
“Learn a lil about history. Quit listening to your bar buddies about history.”
What an immature statement…is that how it goes with your type? When you do dot have a leg to stand on, you revert to personal attacks?
Reply
2:39 pm on November 2nd, 2008 18
LOVEROFPEAS,
In post 15 you take exception to Gerry’s use of the Rape of Naking as an example of Japanese agression…yet you don’t provide any facts that refute his position…that the Japan brutally occupied parts of China.
Regardless of what Iris Chang wrote in her book, what are your facts.
Back up your statement with facts.
Reply
3:57 pm on November 2nd, 2008 19
Arab Oil? We (USA oil companies) found it and developed the oil fields. During the time we developed the oil fields SA could hardly dig a water well. Mineral rights!
Reply
4:23 pm on November 2nd, 2008 20
[...] general runs his mouth. This kind of talk gives you some insight a little closer to home as to why Koreans are always on about Japan not [...]
5:23 pm on November 2nd, 2008 21
Korea beat, I’m sure you have your facts straight, that I do not argue. But it was President Carter who put it into action. His policies toward, and relationships with, other countries was often based on their human rights record. Bad human rights record, you get no aide. You want aide? Correct your human rights abuses. Up until that time many speeches were made and much ado and foot stomping was done, but it was never an issue taken seriously, in the world, by human rights abusers. Mainly because no one did anything about it. Carters human rights policies brought human rights to the for front of the world. More so than any philosopher, prominent politician, or speaker in history. It is now a universal issue in world politics as it never was before. ( Can’t believe I’m standing up for Carter as he was one of our worse presidents)
Reply
5:34 pm on November 2nd, 2008 22
LOVER OF PEAS,(I like peas as well), Who is Iris Chang? I never heard of her. My comments on the rape of Nanking (Nanjing) were made, with much historical research on my part, during previous dicussions with Japanese, on the internet, over the last several years. My search for facts has been illuminating and informative to me, and verify what was reported about the brutality and murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, was in fact, “fact”. One can argue that the large numbers that include the Nanking proper, (including surrounding areas), or the number killed in the city proper itself. Either way the numbers are horrendous. The documented proof and numerous eyewitness accounts are too many and from too many different sources to be a scam as the Japanese nationalists of today would have you believe.
Reply
5:47 pm on November 2nd, 2008 23
LOP, are you going to start telling us all next that the comfort women were really “willing professionals”?
I’m quite pro-Japan and have a lot of problems with Korean whining about the past, but you’re really not doing your side any favors, you know?
Reply
6:19 pm on November 2nd, 2008 24
LOVEROFPEAS, LOL, No bar buddies. Drink my Guiness at home. The Japanese attacked Pearl with the hope that it would gain several years to consolidate their conquests in asia. This included the Dutch East Indies, with lots of oil. To imply the US was the aggressor or started the pacific war by its embargo on oil, because Japan was raping China, is turning history on its head. Japan was the aggressor. They attacked pearl harbor. They attacked vietnam and closed the harbors at Haiphong so no supplies of any kind could get through to the Chinese. They were brutal in their treatment of the Chinese people and killed them without thought and at every opportunity. (ref: Unit 731, and numerous other special units) They did everything possible to keep their war going for the conquest of asia. And you want to put the blame on the US? Are you going to tell me Hitler was only misunderstood next?
Reply
6:40 pm on November 2nd, 2008 25
I see you gave up on that silly ” Panay” arguement and now you are resorting to “straw man” arguements.
“Hitler misunderstood”? or “Comfort women not existing”, I never said any such thing nor do I see any reason to discuss that.
I said that the USA was behind an embargo against Japan that was slowly starving her. Had the same thing been done to the USA, surely the USA would go to war and felt it was just.
The war was ugly and I agree that Unit 731 was a product of that uglyness. In terms of an ugly contest, the USA wins that too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan
Reply
6:50 pm on November 2nd, 2008 26
LOP, you’re absurd. Historians have argued convincingly that the attack on the Panay was deliberate and was a foreshadowing of hard-line elements in the Japanese military trying to draw the US into war that later repeated itself on a much larger scale at Pearl Harbor.
But if you want to keep arguing that a deliberate attack on a US naval ship was not an act of military aggression, while a non-violent embargo was, then knock yourself out but I think I’ll bow out here for now. History as onanism is never much fun to watch or be around.
Reply
7:48 pm on November 2nd, 2008 27
My comment had nothing to do with “comfort women”. But I am willing to express my opinion there as well. Regardless, I’m sure the Japanese felt that they would find it difficult to continue the conquest of China and most of asia with an embargo of oil. Being determined to not let anything interfere with their goals, it would have been logical to attack the US to preclude our entry into their war. They wanted the US out of the way. To say “if the same thing had happened to the US we would have done the same” is irrelevent, because it didn’t and hasn’t happened. But a very nice try at connecting Iraq and the Pacific war. When I look at 10-20-30 million (you do understand ‘MILLION’) Chinese innocent civilians in comparison to 143,000 Japanese civilians who died for no reason, and the estimated 500,000 additional soldiers who would have died taking Japan proper, I have no problem with what the right thing to do was. For the US or for the Japanese.
Reply
8:13 pm on November 2nd, 2008 28
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor is nothing more then the Bush Doctrine applied in 1941. It was a defensive attack. The US was sqeezing Japan. Starving Japan.
Japan killed 30 million Chinese? Oh come on. That Iris Chang book must have really made an impression. Now you are blaming the Mao genocide on the Japanese. Anyway, the US was not out to “save Chinese from Japan”. The US wanted to contain Japan, but they were starving her.
The Panay attack was deliberate, but its all part of real politick. Grow up, or go back to the kids table. The Panay attack was not an attempt to start WW2, that is just silly.
You have all fallen for the victors version of history.
(sarcasm on) let me guess, in your history book the Indians and settlers ate Thanksgiving dinner together? (sarcasm off)
Reply
8:23 pm on November 2nd, 2008 29
Does a couple of racist comments made by high-profile American politicians and media personalities make America a racist country and Americans racist? Racist comments die hard in America, for all I know. This Allen guy and “macaca”…the “Ching Chong” comment made by…who was it? Oh, the story about Obama being an Arab or Muslim. Why did the American media have to wait until Colin Powell finally pointed (in the very end of the campaign) that such stories are irrelevant and even un-American?
These lame and inconsiderate comments get blurted out year after year after year. It’s a never-ending story. Good thing that the people who say those things get sacked in America, too. Oh, but still, Japan is a revisionist country and America is not racist? Really?
Reply
8:56 pm on November 2nd, 2008 30
LOVEROFPEAS, My comments stand and I believe world opinion is against you, if not most of world history. Turning history on its head and what happened during those times to satisfy a current idiological trend of a few revisionists, is not going to change what happened. Read about the war with China and the casualties inflicted. Battle by battle if you wish, I’ve read more than a few. But use several sources for the numbers to try to grasp the magnitude of it. The numbers I quoted were from the war between China and Japan alone, and long before Maos rise to power. Mao played only a side role in the Chinese war with Japan.
Reply
9:00 pm on November 2nd, 2008 31
LOVEROFPEAS, I like Peas that come frozen, steamed, with a big gob of butter and salt and pepper. They are one of my favorites next to sliced beets. Fresh corn on the cob and squash are a close runnerup.
Reply
1:56 am on November 3rd, 2008 32
I guess I’m late to the discussion, but LoP’s is the history revisionist here. As others have noted, Japan was already several years into a war of agression against China and others. The USA oil embargo was not “starving” Japan, it was starving her war machine. And that is what was intended. Japan came to a decision point, and it chose war over peace with America. And she paid dearly for that poor choice…
Reply
8:05 am on November 3rd, 2008 33
“Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor is nothing more then the Bush Doctrine applied in 1941…”
I believe you mean the Cheney Doctrine (of preventive war):
From the New York Review of Books (Nov. 20, 2008 issue):
“…These were the years, too, of D.i.c.k Cheney’s close association with the American Enterprise Institute and its offspring, the Project for the New American Century. The parent think tank, once an ordinary home for postwar business conservatism, had mutated, under the guidance of Irving Kristol, into the most lavish and energetic of the quasi-academic lobbies of neoconservative doctrine. The AEI, in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, had been transformed into an institute for the promotion of laissez-faire economics, militarized foreign policy, and the dismantling of the welfare state. It differed from, say, the Rand Corporation in eschewing any claim to impartiality of analysis. It was polemical and took confrontational positions that were disseminated early in the lectures and seminars open to resident fellows. The AEI differed, also, from an older centrist policy outfit like the Brookings Institution in having superior access to the mass media, thanks to careful self-advertisement and the coaching that its representatives often received from editors and agents such as Adam Bellow and Lynn Chu. A more-in-sorrow style was favored in discussing the grim necessity, for example, of increasing America’s nuclear stockpile or stopping the “culture of poverty” in the black community by cutting off federal programs.
“Cheney’s familiarity with the policy institute way of talking was a steady and not a negligible factor in his ability to gain acceptance for his most outlandish maneuvers in the years between 2001 and 2003: the tax cuts and no-bid contracts with the Pentagon; withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty; the sudden commitment of the Pentagon to vast expenditures on missile defense, notwithstanding the record of test failures among missiles engendered by the Star Wars program under Reagan; the systematic exaggeration of the menace of Saddam Hussein in order to build support for a war against Iraq; and, in the triumphal mood of April 2003, the refusal to consider diplomatic contacts with Iran to obtain a “Grand Bargain” for peace in the Middle East.
“Yet to those who knew the language, Cheney was only the forward edge of a policy long in the works, which had been announced almost in public in the turn-of-the-century strategy document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: the most substantial work commissioned by the Project for the New American Century. Like the authors of that treatise—among them Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, William Kristol, Frederick Kagan, and Stephen Cambone—and like the adepts of American hegemony at the AEI, Cheney, before he took office as vice-president, had concluded that there were no necessary limits on US domination of the world. This conviction hardened during the Clinton years—a window of time, as neoconservatives sometimes say, in which America could have asserted far more control than it did, and with a freer military hand. Cheney’s institutional prowess and his readiness to execute policies long in the making point to a larger pattern that James Mann wrote well about in Rise of the Vulcans.
“Republicans, since 1975, have had a foreign policy establishment that stays in place even when they are out of power. (The Democrats can claim nothing of the sort.) Through the continuity of neoconservative advisers, the military-statist wing of the Republican Party has thus, for three decades now, had the consistency and coherence of a shadow government. Though remarked by no one at the time, most of its essential policies—including “force projection” in the Middle East and continued pressure on Russia in spite of the fall of communism—were already in place by 1996, when the leading foreign policy adviser to Robert Dole was Paul Wolfowitz.
“The Cheney doctrine of preventive war was first announced in a document called Defense Planning Guidance, drafted in 1992 by Zalmay Khalilzad—now US ambassador to the UN after serving as ambassador to Iraq—and revised by Lewis Libby. This guide was cleared for public release in early 1993 by Cheney in his final days as George H.W. Bush’s secretary of defense. Cheney took considerable pride in the prescription here that the US should “act against” emerging threats “before they are fully formed.” George W. Bush would still be echoing those phrases in his June 2002 commencement address at West Point: “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.” Richard Perle saying “We have no time to lose” (July 11, 2002) and Cheney himself telling the Veterans of Foreign Wars that “time is not on our side” (August 26, 2002) kept up the same drumbeat with the same theory to support them. Defense Planning Guidance conferred on America the right to launch at will an international war of aggression. As for the larger strategy, extractable from Rebuilding America’s Defenses, it was marked by an overriding ambition for global mastery, for the possession of irresistible military forces, for an expanded arsenal of nuclear weapons, and for large new investments in missile defense. These publications of 1993 and 2000 now seem a pair of symbolic brackets around the neoconservative exile that was the Clinton administration. All along, this was the normal thinking around the AEI and the Cheney circle. Yet when placed alongside the norms of the containment policy during the years 1946–1989, the new dogma betrayed a shift so tremendous that it could not have been ratified without a layer of well-instructed opinion makers to prepare and soften its acceptance.”
Source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22060
Reply
8:23 am on November 3rd, 2008 34
LOP at number 15, please get your nautical dimensions right, it suggests a lack of precision in your historical analysis. The Panay was a river gunboat 191 feet long, 474 tons, whilst an American Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat was 77 to 80 feet long and 56 tons, depending if you go with an Elco or Higgins built boat.
Reply
8:57 am on November 3rd, 2008 35
As a contrast to the Yasukuni view of history is that portrayed in the Osaka Peace Museum, just south of Osaka Castle. It does a fair job to discuss Japan’s aggression in East Asia, as well as the death and destruction it received in return. So it appears that there is at least some sense of trying to find fairness and balance in the discussion of Pacific War history in Japan today.
Reply
11:14 pm on November 3rd, 2008 36
Japan recieved sanctions because of the particularlly brutal way it was conquering china. Lop is a moron.
Reply
4:37 am on November 4th, 2008 37
[...] are passionate people who get very excited easily and move on just as quickly.Also see ROK Drop’s interesting write up on this issue, touching upon the issue of Yasukuni shrine. A quick summary quote from the post:One [...]
2:56 pm on November 13th, 2008 38
[...] the Dokdo Riders, and my favorite of all bee man. Well I would be wrong if I didn’t point out wacky Japanese nationalists from time to time as well and the latest is this group of Japanese lawmakers concerned about [...]
6:46 am on December 1st, 2008 39
[...] wrote a thorough post on Tamogami’s essay. What he wrote was dumb and wrong, but something he [...]
2:46 pm on December 2nd, 2008 40
[...] make a gesture? He served his country for 37 years. He earned the retirement bonus. GI at ROK Drop wrote about Tamogami’s essay and called it nonsense. I agree, that doesn’t mean he should have to forfeit [...]
4:38 am on December 8th, 2009 41
People are freaking blind even to events unfolding around them as we speak. You people.
The politicians, either known by this denomination or not, have always played cards with human lives.
What was Hitler, a religious figure ? Why are you so stubborn to believe all the heroic psychobabble and do not understand that all these wars are consecquences of high-level political plays for god-knows-what hidden agendas. That’s all there is to it, no fireworks, no glory.
Morons that people put in power and now the people pay for it. With their lives. That simple.
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
-John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton –
“History is written by the winners.”
– Alex Haley, author of “Roots” –
“It is foolish to give power to someone and expect that one not to indulge in it”
– Me, Felix, signing out –
P.S. The general has guts, that’s a virtue.
Reply
December 8th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Enjoy your virtuous General, and all others like him.
Reply