I share your disdain for the fact that those against the war don't deal with the fact that their policies in fact would have left the Hussein regime in power for the forseeable future (moreover, with sanctions intact).

But don't misconstrue the responsible counterargument to intervention, the tough argument, which is not isolationism. It's a cognizance of the fact that there are/have been many autocratic, totalitarian or repressive governments in the world, each of whose people would benefit greatly from liberation and nation building. And that since only a small number of them can be practically liberated, other factors need to be taken into account when deciding on whether the principle of national sovereignity needs to be overridden. Factors such as how the rest of the world will react to the invasion, how much of a threat the country is to its neighbors and to the world (documented with legitimate intelligence reports, please), whether or not we are too busy to invade due to the other, basically unrelated wars we are trying to fight at the same time (Al-Queda, anyone?), how monstrous Hussein was compared to the monsters running other countries (a question that mostly favors the pro-war side, I think). I'm not making the logical error that we may not free a single country from tyranny unless we are willing to free all countries from tyranny. But there was, or rather, there should have been, a fair discussion of whether or not this was the right war at the right time, and not all of the people who disagree with you (and, sometimes, me) on this issue are living in palookaville.

"But there was, or rather, there should have been, a fair discussion of whether or not this was the right war at the right time,"

I wish that there had been, myself; more accurately, I wish that conditions had been sufficiently different that such a discussion could have been possible.

I do not quite trust myself to not start pounding the table and shout if I follow that thought any further, so I shan't.

Hit post too soon... said pounding and shouting would not have been directed against Markus Rose.

Marcus:

Points well taken, and I have no problem with a foreign-policy-based critique of the war. It was indeed a huge gamble, one I believe Bush has staked his presidency on. Bush should be willing, but likely isn't, to be a one-term president in order to defend this policy.

However, the vast majority of those opposing the war articulated nothing like this as their reasons for opposing it.

Instead, it was "Bush=Hitler," "Blair is a poodle," "Not in Our Name" (in whose name then, Uday and Qusay's?), usw. Just as I judge the religious right by the stridency, intolerance, and illogic of their arguments, I judge the anti-war protesters by theirs--and their implicit support for a fascist regime leaves a terrible taste in my mouth that I can't wash away.

You're a thoughful poster who listens to arguments, counterarguments, and has an ability to deal with ambiguity--unfortunately, this is not the norm--as evidentiary item number one, I'd refer you to CalPundit's archives... despite Kevin Drum's reasoned positions, a large portion of the commentariat there is foaming at the mouth when it comes to Bush and the war. What did Yeats write? "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

"The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering with bilious fury because we actually deposed one." James Lileks

1) The vast majority of folks I know who opposed the war did so based on the absurdly stupid risk it presented.

2) The Not In Our Name folks believed (and still believe) that the plan all along was for BushCo. to start with Iraq, then start conquering other countries in an ever-widening circle around it. Slippery slope and all that. They may have been right; I suppose we'll find out in twenty years when a lot of these papers get declassified.

3) We've spent $150 billion on Iraq so far. We could have fricking cured measles for $3.7 billion (est.). Measles killed 870,000 people last year, mostly kids; it's gonna kill another eight hundred thousand this year; and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The concept of "opportunity cost" needed to enter into this discussion at some point.

You're right, Dan, many antiwar demonstrators and antiwar blogs engaged in unsubstantiated character assasination. Pro-war advocates engaged in vituperative commentary as well. The National Review and the Weekly Standard dripped condescension on anyone who disagreed with any part of the Rumsfeldian agenda, even people like Chuck Hagel.

It's evidence, I think, of the general degeneration of political discourse: now it's all about winning, riling up those who agree with you, rhetorically intimidating the opposition, deflecting attention away from the weak part of your argument by any means necessary, etc. Most importantly, appealing to emotion rather than reason. In general, the Left "thinks" the Right is evil, and the Right "thinks" the Left is stupid. This is dirty, lazy pool, worthy of junior high schoolyards. I wonder if it has something to do with the way that lawyers are educated...

Kimmitt:

What is the advantage of "conquering an ever-widening circle of countries" that you say undergirded the Not in Our Name protests? World Domination? Is this a big Risk game or what?
and you say they may have been right?

As far as cost-benefit analysis, how much damage to the economies of the West did 9/11 do? By my estimate, about 4 trillion dollars of wealth disappeared in the first couple of weeks in the wake of the attack. At 5% annual interest for two weeks, that could have generated $7.5 billion. How much would a second attack cost the world?

I'm all for eradicating measles and malaria, which have huge financial and human impacts in Africa and elsewhere. Funding right now for a malaria vaccine effort comes largely from the Gates Foundation. What happens to future funding if another attack occurs and Microsoft stock drops 30%? And what about the consipracy theorist nuts (left and right) who are refusing to get their kids vaccinated because they think vaccines cause autism. They're putting everyones kids at risk, and there is already a substantial increase in such "conquered" diseases as whooping cough in the U.S.

You can claim that opposition to the war is astute, well-reasoned, and the rest, but I stand by my assertion that the majority of anti-war protesters' arguments were emotional, contradictory, often hypocritical, and frequently bordered on incoherent.

Markus:

No argument from me. I think the right-wing ideologues who equate dissent with treason are dangerous to the country and hypocritical to boot--given their foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Clinton. Dissent should be vocal and I like a good political argument, but I agree with you that the political discourse has coarsened significantly of late. The major problem with this is that it destroys coalitions and political compromises--essential for effective democratic governance in the longer term.

Daniel,
As far as cost-benefit analysis, how much damage to the economies of the West did 9/11 do?

If you wish to assert that the reason for invading Iraq was to prevent future 9/11s, then please demonstrate some link between Saddam and the original attacks. This canard that Iraq is part of the war on terror is one of the most irritating arguments from the pro-war crowd. Another source of irritation is the claim MT and others are making that it's somehow inconsistent for liberals to oppose dictators and the invasion of Iraq simultaneously. It is not. Most liberals oppose the WAY Saddam was deposed, not the fact of his ouster. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. We opposed the unilateralism, the refusal to listen to UN weapons inspectors, the attempts to unjustifiably link Saddam to 9/11, and the assertion that Saddam posed a "grave and gathering" threat to America. I would say that all of those objections have been borne out by events. No WMDs, no links to anti-American terrorism, no remotely imminent threat. If you think that anti-war protesters were "emotional, contradictory, often hypocritical, and...incoherent" then maybe it's because you were viewing their objections through the prism of your own prejudices. There are many in the pro-war crowd who used racist, jingoistic, and simply illogical arguments in support of the war, but I certainly don't think that that all war supporters should be painted with the same broad brush.

BTW, what does whooping cough have to do with anything? Just curious where you're going with that one.

There seem to be more than one voice in the thread that talks about disenchantment with both the left and the right, a "coarsening" of the dialogue, with moderate voices drowned out.

I agree, and that's why I followed an instapundit pointer the other day to the centrist coalition's blog, centerfield.

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/

If you're interested in making a clamor from the independent center, you can check it out, and if you want to help it grow, you can join up and post essays on centrist viewpoints and pointers to other blogs and articles that try to see the wide expanse of issues and speak reasonably to them. Down with the wing nuts!

Smokey:

You write "maybe I was viewing their objections through the prism of my own prejudices". Well, yes and no. Who doesn't view events through the prism of their own viewpoint? This is a given. All you have to do is read my posts immediately above to discern that I don't object to people opposing the war, nor am I some foaming-at-the-mouth superpatriot.

I don't think it's a canard that Iraq is part of the realm of terror. Saddam is known to have funded Palestinian suicide bombers, his regime is known to have attempted to acquire advanced missile technology from North Korea, and it is clear that he spent enormous amounts of money on conventional arms and went to great lengths, despite sanctions, to keep his WMD capability intact. I agree direct links to bin Laden are weak at best. But the nexus of frightening weaponry, anti-American hatred, and political volatility in the Middle East is hardly in dispute.

Name a single country in which the "international community" overthrew a vicious fascist tyranny and I'd have more sympathy for the argument that the U.S. did it the "wrong way." How did the U.N. do in Rwanda? Cambodia? Zaire? How did the Europeans do in Bosnia? Kosovo? They dithered while thousands were slaughtered. The brutal fact is that many in the "international community" have a vested interest in keeping the Middle East in its miserable status quo.

The real Western crime is propping up the corrupt and nasty governments of the Middle East in a cynical short-term strategy that did indeed have significant impact in helping bring about 9/11. What reason did bin Laden give for killing so many? U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Why were they there? To enforce the no-fly zone and protect Saudi from Iraqi expansionism.

Saddam gave the finger to the international community for over a decade and they (we?) did nothing whatsoever about it. Bush went to the U.N. France in particular refused to sign on to such action--while upholding the sanctity of the Security Council's stamp of approval for such an action, France hardly bothered to go to the SC for permission for its incursion into Ivory Coast. Defending the status quo ante where the Middle East is concerned is to condemn yet another generation of Arabs to intellectual, economic, and cultural stagnation, and to perpetuate the culture of victimhood, conspiracy-mongering, and passivity that infects the Arab world today.

To me, true internationalism means that one holds countries and rulers to at least minimum standards of conduct regarding the slaughter of their own people. Sovereignty should be a very high bar to action, but not an absolute never to be breached. If anyone every deserved to have his soverignty breached, it was the bloody-handed Hussein.

In Your Name:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1344832,00.html

How long did you want child hostage torture to go on in your name?

There never is a "right time" to go to war.
There never is a "right place" to go to war.
There never is a perfect war, you can always argue that the morality is not compelling enough, the weather is wrong, and the stars are not properly aligned.

It is reasonable to bring up objections before the event, but only if those objections are to some purpose. The only thing that will actually get talked to death is the children in the prisons of the dictators. That blood is in your name.

Daniel Calto wrote:

However, the vast majority of those opposing the war articulated nothing like this as their reasons for opposing it. Instead, it was "Bush=Hitler," "Blair is a poodle," "Not in Our Name" (in whose name then, Uday and Qusay's?), usw.

I disagree. I believe the "Bush=Hitler" crowd was a minority of the anti-war side.

As usual, I have no data to back up my belief. Is anyone aware of any polls or data about why people opposed the war?

Patrick:

Generally I'm a fan of you & your blog, but I got to call you on the "That blood is in your name" line.

No, the blood is in Hussein's name. Period. When liberals come up lines like this, they get slammed for being the "blame America first" crowd. Don't join them.

Patrick -- How can any objection "serve no purpose"? The purpose in fact is to stop or protest the war. Perhaps you mean to say that any objection you disagree with serves no purpose.

Your post is an example of an appeal to emotion, rather than reason. Do you support immediate US intervention in Burma? If not, is this because you support child hostage torture there?

Oberon:

Fair enough. I'd readily admit that most people weren't Bush=Hitler types (except for the German minister). But large numbers of protesters in England were "poodle" types. Similarly, while Bush and Blair were pillioried as warmongers, the protesters scarcely mentioned Putin's tender attention to the Chechens or France's morally bankrupt and hypocritical posture. Chirac, in particular, was a hero, a real man of peace for many in the anti-war movement.

You're also right that the blood is on Saddam's hands, not war opponents, but there is a very real sense in which the "international community"'s inaction functioned as a sort of enabling mechanism to allow Hussein to continue his slaughter. Like the cowed and apologetic wife of a nasty drunk, an international community that maintains the patent fiction that people like Kim Jong Il and the Burmese kleptocracy are legitimate governments enables such governments to survive. I believe in constructive engagement if there is something or someone to engage with, but some regimes should be punished for their depradations on their own citizens.

Author Byron York has asked Don’t the Democrats care even a little about terrorism? According to a poll conducted by Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg, the answer is no. Out of a group of Democrats active in politics, One percent said they were concerned about fighting terrorism. One.

York’s conclusion was : “The bottom line is that if a Democrat wins the White House next year and listens to his party’s most ardent supporters, he will simply shut down the war on terrorism.”

If an isolationist candidate like Buchanan or Kucinich was elected, that would be a disaster - but they're not very popular. I just wonder, how much influence do the isolationists have over any Democratic candidate – even the more ‘moderate’ ones?

Markus: Do you support immediate US intervention in Burma? If not, is this because you support child hostage torture there?

I do not support an immediate intervention in Burma. But I can promise you that I would not stand in the way if an intervention were to occur.

Do you see the difference? If not, I will try to clarify it.

Mary: Out of a group of Democrats active in politics, One percent said they were concerned about fighting terrorism. One.

Actually, Mary, one percent said fighting terrorism was their top priority. That doesn't mean 99 percent of them don't care about it at all.

Daniel,

I'm sorry, but your claims that Saddam's support for families of Palestinian suicide bombers links him to international terrorism is just wrong. Name an arab country which does not support the Palestinians in some way. Should we therefore invade them all as supporters of terrorism? There have been quite a few Irish-americans who donated money to the IRA, but I don't think you could claim that that makes them culpable for 9/11. Terrorism is not an entity, it is a technique used to further a goal. It is a despicable technique whenever used, but the fact that one supports it in the furtherance of a certain goal does not imply support of all terrorism. I'm not trying to defend Saddam or terrorism, just to point out that linking him to 9/11 in the absence of concrete proof is sloppy.

As far as spending enormous amounts of money on conventional arms, so what? Nobody spends more money on conventional arms than we do. There are some who would argue that this makes us a threat to world peace, but I don't think so. And as we are talking about terrorism, I don't see how conventional weapons are relevant. As for WMDs, theoretical WMD programs are a lot different from (and much less threating than) actual, tangible WMDs.

Yes, tyranny is a terrible thing and the international community is not particularly effective in combatting it. I will agree with you on that. I disagree, however, that the best remedy for that is to go around unilaterally invading countries like some international Punisher. Vigilantism is seldom the solution.

Saddam gave the finger to the international community for over a decade and they (we?) did nothing whatsoever about it.
Well, there is the little matter of taking effective control of much of his territory away from him (Kurdish territory/no-fly zones) and the imposition of crippling sanctions, but that's the same as nothing, I guess. And considering that he was giving us the finger regarding our demands that he fess up about his (non-existant) WMDs, can you really blame him?

To me, true internationalism means that one holds countries and rulers to at least minimum standards of conduct regarding the slaughter of their own people. Sovereignty should be a very high bar to action, but not an absolute never to be breached. If anyone every deserved to have his soverignty breached, it was the bloody-handed Hussein.
Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But true internationalism must be, you know, international. If we could have convinced the UN to back an invasion to remove Saddam from power based on his treatment of his people, I would have supported that. In this case, however, it was one country (plus a few toadies) invading based on a trumped-up justification regarding WMDs and purported links to terrorism. The end does not justify the means. Especially when the means is so costly, in lives, money, and reputation.

Do you see the difference? If not, I will try to clarify it.

You've said this before, and I still don't. Either you think a policy is a good risk or you don't.

The total poll results were not so extreme – most Democrats said that it was that the candidate “had experience in foreign affairs, intelligence and national security.”

About the war: the most important point seemed that, support it or not, a candidate should be critical of the Bush administration.

York interpreted the results to show that the most ardent supporters of the Democratic party are interested in security, but they are not interested in going out and fighting terrorism – that’s why I believed that the ‘most ardent supporters’ were isolationists. York’s conclusion was that if a Democrat was elected, the war on terrorism would be phased out to make the isolationists happy. His conclusion sounded alarming, but it might have been alarmist.

Smokey:

Saddam's support for suicide bombers DOES link him to international terrorism. To say it doesn't because Iran also funds Palestinain suicide bombers is nonsense. What the hell else would you call financial support?

I never claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11--I certainly don't think he was. I did say he's part of the realm of terror, and he was and is, both against his own people and against international actors. He invaded Kuwait, for goodness sake. He certainly engaged in genocidal terror against his own people.

As far as sanctions, the oil-for-palaces program was massively corrupt, run by Total-Fina-Elf, and the French and Russians had been agitating for years to lift the sanctions so they could trade freely with Saddam. Who in the heck was acting more cynically, the U.S. or France? This drama teems with bad actors. For that matter, who enforced the no-fly zone? The "international community"? The Syrians? The Germans? Nope, it was the much-reviled and unilateralist U.S. who upheld the international community's sanctions (as usual).

Yes, the U.S. spends more than Iraq on weapons in absolute terms. What about as a percentage of our GDP? Per capita GDP in Iraq is $600, per capita GDP in the U.S. is about $35,000. What about the scores of acre-sized munitions dumps scattered all over Iraq? Good use of the oil-for-food funds? Terrorism is not an entity--but terrorists are entities, non-state actors supported and sheltered by rogue regimes.

I'd hardly say that the U.S. engaged in vigilantism. What about 1441? Saddam had multiple chances to come clean--it was his own obsession with secrecy and belief in his ability to act without negative consequences to himself--indeeed, his certainty that the international community would do nothing whatsoever--that led him to make a terrible strategic error, one which I hope impressed tyrants worldwide. It is precisely the international community's spinelessnes that Saddam was counting on.

Okay, so the U.S., Britain, Spain, Australia (aka "the Toadies") supported the U.S. move toward war and France, Germany, Russia (how many Muslims has Putin slaughtered in Chechnya anyway?) and Syria didn't. Why is the Security Council such a sanctified body? Why is its approval the be-all and end-all of what can and cannot be done? It's a letigimate viewpoint to say that the SC should be consulted and give its approval, but I don't find the SC's record very impressive.

Of the hundreds of wars which have started since 1945, precisely two wars have been sanctioned by the SC--The Korean War (only because Russia was absent from the vote) and the Gulf War. In both cases, it was the U.S. who went to the SC. We are hardly a rogue nation stomping on every international norm--it is the Burmas, North Koreas, Irans, and Iraqs that do so. I hardly think the U.S. is perfect, but I think you're engaging in a kind of self-flagellation regarding our vigilantism and the like.

I'm happy Kim Jong Il was so frightened he spent 40 days in hiding during the invasion of Iraq. I'm happy that that bastard is negotiating in a multilateral framework, as announced by the Chinese today. I don't the the U.S. is a rogue nation--I think we did something great in liberating 25 million Iraqis from a brutal regime, and I think despite the great uncertainty and problems this has created, as well as the deaths of soldiers and Iraqis, that it had indeed been "worth it" up to now. Whether it will ultimately be worth it will be determined by how determined the U.S. is, and whether the Iraqis and the international community can step up to the plate.

Markus wrote:

“There are/have been many autocratic, totalitarian or repressive governments in the world, since only a small number of them can be practically liberated, other factors need to be taken into account when deciding on whether the principle of national sovereignty needs to be overridden.

Factors like: how the rest of the world will react to the invasion, how much of a threat the country is to its neighbors and to the world (documented), whether or not we are too busy to invade due to the other, basically unrelated wars we are trying to fight at the same time (Al-Queda?), how monstrous Hussein was compared to the monsters running other countries.

I'm [dont intend to make] the logical error that we may not free a single country from tyranny unless we are willing to free all countries from tyranny. [But] there should have been a fair discussion of whether or not this was the right war at the right time.”

The fact that there are many nations ruled by dictators should NEVER stop ANYONE from taking one of them down. And the principle of NATIONAL sovereignty does not exist for a dictatorship (in which case it is really PERSONAL property over other humans, i.e. slavery). And no one PLANS wars like a dinner party, you fight the opponnent who shows up.

Kimmit wrote:

“The vast majority of folks I know who opposed the war did so based on the absurdly stupid risk it presented.”

What risk? We might lose? Arabs might hate us? Muslims might try to sneak into this country and commit acts of terror? Right then…

“The Not In Our Name folks believed that the plan all along was for Bush&Co to start with Iraq and then start conquering other countries in an ever-widening circle around it - the slippery slope argument and all that.”

Hows that make any sense at all? The same people who claim to doubt our ability to subdue Iraq somehow think that we can win the entire Risk™ region? Nonsense. The Slipper Slope is USUALY a lousy argument, avoid it. And the phrase Not In Our Name was wripped from whom? (Orwell) And do you think it makes ANY sense to use it thusly? (no).

“We've spent $150 billion on Iraq so far. We could have cured measles for $3.7 billion (est.).

Direct insurance loses were around $50 billion. The effect on 2001-2003 was half a trillion dollars. You can find more and more such numbers the more you look. The long term effect of this one attack alone will continue for decades, if not longer. The amount of money that the US will spend on aide to other nations is pittance, the amount we spend for security is offset some by the gain that we receive of the same. Doing this kind of math seems like a good idea at first, but it also quite mercantile.

“If you wish to assert that the reason for invading Iraq was to prevent future 9/11s, then please demonstrate some link between Saddam and the original attacks.”

The obvious answer is to count the number of repeats of the 9-11 attacks since 2001… oh, right, none… must be doing SOMETHING right. Meanwhile, if you have trouble connecting the dots, I did it for you here and here.

Smokey wrote:

“Another source of irritation is the claim MT and others are making that it's somehow inconsistent for liberals to oppose dictators and the invasion of Iraq simultaneously. It is not. Most liberals oppose the WAY Saddam was deposed, not the fact of his ouster. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. We opposed the unilateralism, the refusal to listen to UN weapons inspectors, the attempts to unjustifiably link Saddam to 9/11, and the assertion that Saddam posed a "grave and gathering" threat to America. No WMDs, no links to anti-American terrorism, no remotely imminent threat.”

BS. If you truly oppose a dictator then you have to support SOME method for removing them. If not direct force, war, then you must support indirect force, sanctions, but lefties opposed BOTH. You wanna try the UN, arbitration, and negotiation? Yeah, because the French were just about ready to start talking tough to Saddam, right after the Russians, and the Germans, and the Chinese. Ah huh, right. And truly, those lefties who continue to harp about “no WMD” are going to have a sour day when they are found in Iran, Syria, or simply buried in the dirt.

Meanwhile, really, this obsession with rusty tanks of gas is a bit absurd. It isn’t the canisters or shells that we should be concerned about, but the technical capabilities. And it is for continuing to harbor the DESIRE for WMD and the ABILITY to produce them that was the real problem with Saddam. If sanctions had been lifted and inspectors officially satisfied (what the left wanted then) Saddam could have been dangerous again in days, certainly months, and certainly years, all of which he would have had plenty of. Come on, we all know that you don’t actually have to DO anything to be dangerous (that's the basic premise of politics). As explained by a Scandinavian weapons inspector here.

Ooops – my last comment was incoherent – I should have said:

The total poll results were not so extreme – Pollsters asked respondents which characteristics they believed would be most important in a candidate. Most Democrats said that the candidate should have “experience in foreign affairs, intelligence and national security.”

York said: “Combined with other results, that suggests Democrats want a leader who has the ability to fight terrorism but will not actually do it.”

About the war: the most important point seemed to be, support it or not, a candidate should be critical of the Bush administration.

York interpreted the total results to show that the ‘most ardent supporters’ of the Democratic party are interested in security, but they are not interested in going out and fighting terrorism – that’s why I believed that the ‘most ardent supporters’ were isolationists. York’s conclusion was that if a Democrat was elected, the war on terrorism would be phased out to make the isolationists happy. His conclusion sounded alarming, but it might have been alarmist.

"And it is for continuing to harbor the DESIRE for WMD and the ABILITY to produce them that was the real problem with Saddam."

An utterly absurd sentence. Makes as much sense as cutting someone's balls off because he fantasizes about having sex with someone other than his wife. The legitimate arguments for war were the humanitarian reasons, the need to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and the snowball's chance in hell that we could shake things up positively in the Middle East and help to build a decent Arab democracy there. All evidence shows that Saadam, unlike Hitler in the thirties, was being deterred in the nineties by sanctions and inspections.

Daniel,

Hmm...maybe Bush is not Hitler, and yet Blair is still a poodle?

And isn't "poodle" pretty lame for an insult? I thought the Brits were far more clever than us Yanks when it comes to insults.

Markus: Do you support immediate US intervention in Burma? If not, is this because you support child hostage torture there?

Michael: I do not support an immediate intervention in Burma. But I can promise you that I would not stand in the way if an intervention were to occur.

Do you see the difference? If not, I will try to clarify it.

Markus: Sort of. But I bet if it turned out that an intervention in Burma had huge costs or disastrous unintended consequences, you might be inclined to reconsider your neutrality. Some of those opposed to our Iraqi action have this same viewpoint. It's a simple, or rather, complex cost-benefit analysis.

Oberon,

I was trying to make a complex point quickly and simply. I actually had no intention of pointing out individual responsibility for the deaths to anybody posting on the comments field. The "Not In Our Name" crowd does need to take responsibility for enabling Saddam Hussein's regime to continue the brutality. They diligently worked to delay the liberation of Iraq and they cannot be allowed to denounce responsibility for war without accepting responsibility for postponing the liberation.

I am glad that you have enjoyed my blog and I hope that makes my point more clear.

Smokey: Most liberals oppose the WAY Saddam was deposed, not the fact of his ouster. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. We opposed the unilateralism,

Liberals supported Clinton's unilateral intervention in Kosovo. Heck, Clinton didn't even pretend to care what the UN thought about that. So, no, I'm not buying this at all.

Besides, it's not Bush's fault that France refused to cooperate. The French could have said "yes" any time they felt like it. Most European countries did support us, though, so I don't see what was unilateral about the invasion. Germany and France are not the only countries in the "international community."

Markus,

If the US decided to invade Burma and I thought it was a stupid idea, I would still at least support it halfway. I wouldn't pretend to speak for the enslaved Burmese while opposing it, and I wouldn't pretend afterward like nothing good had come of it. And I certainly wouldn't march in solidarity with the filthy regime.

There are honest and reasonable war opponents out there whom I respectfully disagree with. And they aren't who I'm griping about when I say "Palookaville."

Markus,

"How can any objection "serve no purpose"? "

Objections can be so completely devoid of meaning as to make the voicing of them nothing but an exercise in futility. If you feel that the anti-war movement is justified in furthering global futility, I suppose that is an opinion, but not one would choose to espouse.

"No War Until the Cubs Win the Pennant!"
"No War Without Louis Vuitton Accessories!"
"No War to Prevent Genocide!"
"No War Because They Give Me Headaches!"
"No Unfashionable War!" (Not a chant that would have stopped the most popular and pointlessly destructive war: WWI.)

These are objections that serve no purpose and are distressingly close to the ones furthered by many anti-war groups.

Marcus quotes me as saying "And it is for continuing to harbor the DESIRE for WMD and the ABILITY to produce them that was the real problem with Saddam."

I should have specified that this was the problem with Saddam as far as WMD goes. I believe that the real "problem" with Saddam was that he was a masochistic megalomaniac, but I wasnt addressing that issue in that section.

Marcus said "An utterly absurd sentence. Makes as much sense as cutting someone's balls off because he fantasizes about having sex with someone other than his wife."

Well I certainly didnt intend to support the case for a "pre-crime" department... but this IS different.

Saddam DID gas his own people, Saddam DID try to have Bush Sr. assasingnated, Saddam WAS involved (they say) in the first WTC attack.

So its more like locking up a convicted, repeat pedophile for life (Saddam was offered the chance to leave Dodge and even now might save his life by surrendering).

But my point was that finding ACTUAL WMD is not important. WMD dont store well. They also dont really take that much to put together (assuming you are a nation-state with agriculture and science facilities).

Arguing about whether or not Saddam was a threat based upon "does he have artillary shells or missiles loaded, pointed at us, and with suffcnt range and accuracy to hit us" is bogus. That is how the US fights wars.

But all Saddam needs to do is email a recipe for any one of a number of chem or bio agents and credit a Pay Pall account of a willing terrorist staying in NY if he wishes to do untold damage to us.

So, do you wait for him to sleep with your wife?

Not to mention, as you noted, all the other wonderful reasons to take him down.

""But there was, or rather, there should have been, a fair discussion of whether or not this was the right war at the right time,"
"I wish that there had been, myself; more accurately, I wish that conditions had been sufficiently different that such a discussion could have been possible."

Where you guys been?

The saem level of discussion as this thread was going on since 9-11 - i was reading it all the way through. Much of it was on blogs and online forums, but they in turn linked to articles doing the discussion, from Foreing Policy, the Atlantic, the NYTimes, etc. I don't get my news from TV or radio so I don't know how much of the discussion filtered out to those media, but certainly online and in print intense discussion went on for a year before we invaded.

This is another attempt to rewrite history.

To clarify Sean's comments, there is evidence that Saddam attempted to have 41 assasinated. There is not evidence that Saddam attempted an assignation with any US President or that any US President has resorted to cruise missile bombardment in retaliation for attempted assignation.

"Most liberals oppose the WAY Saddam was deposed, not the fact of his ouster. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. We opposed the unilateralism"

More rewriting. We had a coalition of over 30 countries. We went to the UN over and over again. Post invasion, Iraq was and still is being administered jointly by the US, UK, and Poland.

Good points Yehudit. But dont forget Australia!

I think the state of the left can be summed up by playing with the famous quote of Golda Meir, that unfortunately the left hates George Bush more than it loves their own country.

smokey:

I dont understand your WMD position. Its clear he had them at the end of gulf war 1, correct? Its also clear that if had decided to destroy all of his existing weapons and cease the persuit for new ones he would have done so as publicly as possible, right? Unless you disagree with one of these points i don't see how you can deny the existance of both existing WMDs and the active pursuit for new ones right up until the war beagn. Please let me know what I am missing about your position. Thanks.

Kimmitt, As an aside on your point about curing measles, I'm afraid to say that vaccination has also been infected with the irrational anti-Americanism of our times. The left have to accept a lot of blame for this situation; they have made spreading conspiracy memes an industry - some make a very good living from it. Everything is a conspiracy. Nothing is accepted at face value.

That they have done this to harm a President they do not like may be acceptable to them, but this type of thinking is doing immense harm outside of the West in terms of our future security and the well-being of individuals in places like Nigeria.

Saddam WAS involved (they say) in the first WTC attack

no, there is no proof of this.

But all Saddam needs to do is email a recipe for any one of a number of chem or bio agents and credit a Pay Pall account of a willing terrorist staying in NY if he wishes to do untold damage to us.

WMDs are not the problem: irrational anti-Americanism is the problem. the people who hate the US don't need anthrax or Vx to do what they want. they have proven, spectacularly, that they can do what they want using $3 items from the checkout line at Home Depot.

the only thing stopping terrorists from pulling off another 9/11 attack again is law enforcement, stepped-up airport security and intelligence operations - and as the college kid just demonsrtated, even that needs serious work. invading Iraq will do nothing to prevent someone else using box cutters to hijack another airliner, and it won't deter anyone from wanting to do it, either.

But the left has never been isolationist.

I can't speak for the entire "left", but one big reason I didn't support Bush's decision was because (as you can probably tell from above) I thought it was disingenuous to use the pretense of fighting terrorism for invading Iraq. I thought (and think) that the real sponsors of the people behind the brand of terrorism that affects the US are being handled like delicate little flowers, while we put on a big show in Iraq.

i don't buy the PNAC rationale. and i don't buy the pundit-class right's post-hoc humanitarian rationale - especially since so much of the average Joe SixPack right clearly still prefers the "mow 'em down" solution.

and saying that we invaded Iraq because Saddam sponsored Palestinian terrorism is silly - are we now responsible for fighting Israel's wars ? we've got enough problems of our own, and Israel is perfectly capable of fighting its own wars.

Overthrowing vicious dictators? Liberating an oppressed people? Before I make up my mind on this issue, I would want to know what Paul Wolfowitz has to say on it:

"There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. [...] The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it."

I guess that's that.

The left have to accept a lot of blame for this situation; they have made spreading conspiracy memes an industry - some make a very good living from it.

Yes, that must be it; the Muslim population of this world has no reason to view the US as colonialist, so it's all about the vicious memes the Left is planting in the heads of those poor little people.

Someone named Dave left a comment here.

His post was deleted and his IP address has been banned from this site.

Kimmitt, I consider myself from the left, but some of the utter garbage being spread as so-called truth by the left makes me cringe. Rather than focusing on the real issues, they have bought into the Oliver Stonesque world view and this is used as supporting evidence by extremists for completely irrational views on the America.

You may wish to paint me as a patronising Westerner, but then this so-called left which thinks Arab people can't cope with concepts like democracy.

Oberon:

I don't know, I think even if "poodle" is bad analysis, it's a pretty good insult. A cute little poodle dressed in pink bows with a little fuzzy sweater, sitting in Dubya's lap while he pets it--a pretty damning image.

The reason I hate the poodle meme is that I think Tony Blair, far more than Bush, put his entire political career on the line and pursued a policy he believed in in the face of ferocious domestic opposition. He never flinched from taking full responsibility for his policy choices. He functioned as a true leader functions. He was eloquent long before the war that one reason for invading Iraq was to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people, and he meant it. He heavily influenced Bush' decision to go to the U.N. and make some overtures to Europe in the wake of the war, policies I think were wise even they they weren't entirely effective. I greatly admire Blair, and believe he is no one's "poodle."

Ah, Dave. Don't tell me, let me guess: he used profanity, called everybody a fascist and generally sounded like a somewhat sophisticated ELIZA program, am I right? :)

Moe

As opposed to other Daves who post here, of course. I think that there's at least one.

Kimmit wrote: "Yes, that must be it; the Muslim population of this world has no reason to view the US as colonialist..." /sarcasm

Um, Kimmit? Um, which nation in the Muslim World was a US colony? From when to when?

And by colony I am sure you mean "settlers building towns and taking over land rights and civil administration, banning local languages and religions, and importing the languages and beliefs of the mother country".

You know, like with France in Syria, Algeria, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leon; Italy with Libya; the Dutch in Malaysia and Indonesia; or England with Hong Kong, India, and Iraq.

The US is "guilty" of propping up the Shaw, Saddam, Saddat, the Hashimites, and the Saudis as opposed to either Communism or Islamic Fascism.

You can complain that these efforts were not done correctly (as with Saudi Arabia), but I wont be dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing that allowing either "ism" to sweep the Mid East in the 60's would have been a good thing.

Meanwhile, no one seems to recall that the US blocked many "colonial activities" by England, France, and Israel (in the 50's specifically).

Talk about Leftist memes... your repetition and acceptance of this "Imperial American history" is EXACTLY what people are talking about. You are confusing the US with Europe. (Please) Knock it off!

I read these posts again. And I hereby declare Daniel Calto "the winner". His posts were the best written and his arguments are the most convincing. Congratulations Daneil. If you post your own blog url here I will become a regular reader. Thanks. -Sean

Actually, Sierra Leone has a very strong connection to the U.K. Sierra Leone is an Anglophone country and was never colonized by France. The U.K. returned freed slaves there (thus the capital's name of Freetown), much as U.S. freed slaves returned to Liberia. Sierra leone is now part of the British Commonwealth.

The British had a substantial presence in Sierra Leone but never really colonized it per se. The British governor for West Africa used Freetown as a seat of governance.

Dear sblafren:

If I knew you were going to praise me so much I wouldn't have hit the send button and posted my picky correction--hahaha.

I better stop posting so much here--there are far too many sensible comments. I'm starting to feel uncomfortably at home. Heck, nobody's called me a Nazi racist warmonger for days now....I'm getting kind of nostalgic for hardcore rhetorical bomb-throwers again--gets my adrenalin pumping and all.

ChrisL wrote: the only thing stopping terrorists from pulling off another 9/11 attack again is law enforcement [...] invading Iraq will do nothing to prevent someone else using box cutters to hijack another airliner, and it won't deter anyone from wanting to do it, either.

This is incorrect, all three planes that were successful in hitting their targets were pulled off before anyone realized that these weren't the typical hostage taking situation. When passengers of the fourth plane made the decision to rush the cockpit they knew they were trading their lives for those of others. It is unlikely that 5 or 6 terrorist could hold a cockpit against a determined mob of passengers. WMD are a greater threat to American lives than another flying bomb. While a $10 bombs could kill 50 people, WMD in the quality and quantity available in pre-Desert Storm I Iraq could kill hundreds of thousands.

Terrorism is impossible to stop entirely, as Timothy McVeigh and other homegrown terrorist show there's always going to be somebody that has a gripe against the U.S. But, in denying terrorists their state sponsors we can decrease their frequency and damage.

You don't try to help people of a country by starting a war against that country. It creates a lot of complications. People tend to interpet bombs dropping on them as a hostile act rather than a helpful one.

That's why every religious and moral leader opposed the war.

Unless the people lived under a vicious dictatorship then you'll find polls supporting the action, as in Iraq.

As for all religious and moral leaders opposing the war, in the UK there were bishops who supported the war as just, but in any case our elected leader made the moral case in February.

copithorne:

Read some news. The Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and, generally, a majority of Iraqis, did not interpret our precision bombing of the murdering thug who had oppressed them for decades as a hostile act. They are grateful to us.

Copithorne: You don't try to help people of a country by starting a war against that country.

Tell that to the former slaves of the old Confederacy, as well as the Iraqis. Okay, the Confederacy wasn't exactly another country, but it tried to be, and you get my point.

Michael, the Confederate states started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter. The Union did not start the war to free the slaves.

Perhaps the closest counter-example to my thesis in modern times is when Vietnam invaded Khmer Rouge Cambodia in 1978(?). I remember America and much of the rest of the world issued some protests at that time but probably it helped move things along for Cambodia. I don't know if on balance that was regarded as a good move for Vietnam.

Read some news. The Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and, generally, a majority of Iraqis, did not interpret our precision bombing of the murdering thug who had oppressed them for decades as a hostile act. They are grateful to us.

A 'majority' of Iraqis doesn't really cut it. If we are at war with even 10% of the population we've got a real problem. You can try to justify the morality of starting a war without coming to grips with that problem.

As for all religious and moral leaders opposing the war, in the UK there were bishops who supported the war as just, but in any case our elected leader made the moral case in February.

I'd be happy to consider these bishops who said the war was just. I didn't see it myself. The Catholic Bishops were sharply anti-war going as far as to call it "a crime against peace which calls out to God for vengeance." If there are some Anglican bishops who supported it, that would be news to me.

The quote you provided from Tony Blair does not constitute moral justification of anything. The fact that Saddam Hussein is a genocidal criminal has no bearing on whether we are justified in committing a crime ourselves.

Copithorne: Oh, another "Not In Our Name" person. The sentiments behind "Not In Our Name" have a long and undistinguished history, and the words or sentiment are almost always invoked as a reason not to intervene in genocidal destruction of whole peoples. It was invoked in Britain in 1937, it was invoked in Rwanda by the U.N., it was invoked by the Europeans when they shamefully truned away from the Balkans. It's also invoked now implicitly by all those nations (including, sadly, the U.S.) who say nothing about Chechnya. I'm happy, and I believe a hell of a lot of Iraqis are happy, that Bush and Blair don't take their cues from the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who after all are not exactly experts in the minutiae of foreign policy.

You're happy with the death of 350 American soldiers and counting? You're happy with thousands of maimed and wounded? You're happy borrowing hundreds of billions from future generations of Americans to pay for it? That's pretty sick, dude. The only other sorts of people who are happy about that are people such as Osama Bin Laden.

There's a class of war defenders who simply add up all the "benefits" and ignore all the costs and call it victory. People who aren't defensive balance benefits and costs and see the war in Iraq as a catastrophic debacle.

Again, there are reasons why countries don't go around starting wars for humanitarian reasons. There are often opportunities for peacekeeping for humanitarian reasons. But most people don't find it difficult to see that starting wars for humanitarian reasons is (oxy)moronic.

copithorne: "You don't try to help people of a country by starting a war against that country. It creates a lot of complications. People tend to interpet bombs dropping on them as a hostile act rather than a helpful one. That's why every religious and moral leader opposed the war."

This exactly the kind of leftist claptrap that drove me away.

You dont think that people living in a concentration camp cant figure out that the bullets of the guys shooting their guards are "friendly fire"?

Do you think Arabs or Afghans are fricken stoopid?

During the Afghan war I downloaded a pic that went with a news story that I saw on cable news... an Afghan man was standing in the rubble of what used to be his house after an errent US bomb destroyed it. He said, in broken but clear English: "I dont care, bomb my house again, if it means that [the Taliban leave] and I can bring my family home sooner. We can always rebuild."

And the Pope has been known to START plenty of wars.

Get a grip.

I don't know if Fox News is telling you, but American soldiers are being shot at in Iraq. Many are being killed and wounded. In my opinion is that is a bad thing.

I am surprised at how much public support the resistance to the US occupation has in Iraq. It seems to be quite deep so that even the Iraqi police and army are seen to be in sympathy with the resistance.

I think that is probably irrational on the part of the Iraqi people to support the resistance. I think it would go better for them if they tried to work with the Americans to rebuild their country. But, again, when you drop bombs on a country people tend to interpret it as a hostile act. One of those quirks of human nature, I suppose. Whether it is irrational or immoral or not doesn't make a difference. Either way, we still have a big problem because we are still being shot at.

That's why countries don't go around starting wars for humanitarian reasons. They just don't. It's not a tool in the humanitarian tool kit.

And which wars do you think John Paul II has started?

Daniel Cato, yes, of course, including Sierra Leone with the French colonies was boneheaded. It was made a British protectorate in 1896 as a counter to the French. My bad. -S

I don't know if Fox News is telling you

I don't watch Fox News. It annoys me a great deal. Thanks for suggesting I'm brainwashed, though.

I was responding to sblarfen who was writing as though there were no problems between Iraqis and American soldiers. I don't know how to account for that perspective.

You don't respond to the substance of my posts. But you do have time to affect umbrage at something I said to another poster? What's up with that?

Copithorne writes: I am surprised at how much public support the resistance to the US occupation has in Iraq. It seems to be quite deep so that even the Iraqi police and army are seen to be in sympathy with the resistance.

I don't know what CNN is telling you ;p, but there isn't much public support for the resistance. At least this guy, http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ doesn't think so, but then he's just an Iraqi citizen. He seems supportive of the U.S. presence, along with the other people who post in the comments forum, some who claim to be Iraqi. As I recall, can't find the link now, there was a recent survey of the Iraqi population which found the great majority of them supported the American occupation. I haven't seen any evidence of a deep-seated support for the resistance. What line do you have on the loyalties of the Iraqi populace that contradicts this?

What army are you referring to? The Iraqis don't have one; it was disbanded. I doubt they could be in league with the resistance if they don't even exist. I haven't heard of anything linking Iraqi police and the resistance activities. Could you post a link or a story perhaps?

On a sidebar: the people that are dropping bombs now are the Iraqi 'resistance', who kill atleast 2-3 iraqi with every bomb they detonate

Copithorne:

Yes, I'm ecstatic over the deaths of 400 American soldiers and had a great weekend because of the wonderful news about the helicopter. I've got a poster of Osama Bin Laden at home right next to the pictures of my friends who died in the World Trade Center attacks.

How do you get your head into the pencil sharpener every morning? It must really hurt.

Your attempt at analysis is muddleheaded gibberish and you're either the most gullible or patently stupid person I've had the displeasure of encountering on the blogosphere for some time. Frankly, you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.

No, people don't like bombs dropped on their heads, but they might well like having bombs dropped on the heads of those who tortured and oppressed them for thirty years. The U.S. went to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian casualties in Iraq, increasing the risk to American soliders in the process.

The costs for overthrowing the vicious Baathish fascist dictatorship are indeed significant--thousand of lives and significant post-war chaos. The benefits of the intervention are just as significant and far more numerous: 1) 25 million people liberated from a fascist regime; 2) the freeest press in the Arab Middle East 3) an explosion of commerce 4) The beginnings of the reconstruction of the marshes in the South 5) Hundreds of children relesead from prison 6) Exposure and cessation of widespread torture in police stations all over Iraq 7) Freedom for Shiites to practice their religion 8) The expunging of hateful pro-Baathist propaganda from schoolbooks 9) The equitable distribution of electricity to the South and North of the country for the first time 10) The renaissance of Karbala as a religious center for Shia Islam which is more tolerant and willing to consider civil government than the mullahs in Qum.

I could go on, but don't really want to waste my time with such an insulting moron as you, copithorne.

Maladroit, it is possible that you saw Dick Cheney lying about a poll in Iraq. Polls in Iraq show dreadful news for the American occupation. A recent Nicholas Kristoff column notes:

"Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all."

Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands down," and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less.

"I am not willing to say they lied," Mr. Zogby said. "But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results. . . . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort."

Daniel, I guess I just place a higher value on the lives of American soldiers and on American prestige and a lower value on the kinds of progress you see in Iraq.

I think a best case scenario is that we get out of Iraq in eighteen months with 1,000 dead and a generally lawful, moderately Anti-American Islamic state in Iraq. Think something like a satellite of Iran.

Given your admiration for Osama Bin Laden and your love of the Holy Koran that kind of American death toll is a small price to pay to set up an Islamic state. But my personal opinion is that it is not America's interest to do this.

http://www.viagra-exchange.com/ (Viagra), please erase this message and you'll never see our ad again.

http://www.viagra-exchange.com/ (Viagra), please erase this message and you'll never see our ad again.

Erase if don't like: adipex Zovirax Pills Buy Zyban Effexor Effexor On Line Renova Pills Buy Retin-A Imitrex USA Pharmacy Cheap Aldara Propecia Prescription

Perceptions do not limit reality.

If you would be unloved and forgotten, be reasonable.

We offer: Zithromax Viagra USA Pharmacy adipex USA Pharmacy Valtrex Propecia Pills Skelaxin Online Buy Sonata tenuate Prescription Ultram Order Ambien Didrex Sale Phendimetrazine Sale

Amsterdam Hotels Auckland Hotels Paris Hotels Prague Hotels Vienna Hotels Seoul Hotels Stockholm Hotels Budapest Hotels

Amsterdam Hotels Auckland Hotels Paris Hotels Prague Hotels Vienna Hotels Seoul Hotels Stockholm Hotels Budapest Hotels

Any certainty is a delusion.

Hi. cheapest phentermine or effects of adipex didrex compare price or buy tenuate cheap phentermine pharmacy, phentermine supplier, online phentermine sale and Viagra from viagra sales

buy lipitor valtrex neurontin best buy lexapro cheap buy celexa cheapest remeron price cheapest serafem paxil info zyrtec prescription online triphasil information cheapest yasmin

Online FDA approved drugs: buying buspar online Didrex Prescription Fioricet USA Pharmacy Phentermine Pills Prozac Prescription Soma Sale tenuate USA Pharmacy Ultram Online Cheapest Ultram Viagra On Line celebrex wholesale

ƒJƒŠƒrƒAƒ“ƒRƒ€ caribbeancom ƒJƒŠƒrƒAƒ“ ƒJƒŠƒrƒAƒ“ caribbean •Ä‘«“®‰æ’ʐM 2345 2345.tv ƒIƒiƒj[ƒRƒ€ 0721 0721 ƒRƒXƒ`ƒ…[ƒ€ƒVƒAƒ^[ costumetheater DXLIVE DXLIVE DXLIVE DXƒ‰ƒCƒu DXƒ‰ƒCƒu ƒfƒ‰ƒbƒNƒXƒ‰ƒCƒu EXSHOT EXSHOT EXSHOT EXƒVƒ‡ƒbƒg EXƒVƒ‡ƒbƒg GirlsOnAir GirlsOnAir GirlsOnAir ƒK[ƒ‹ƒYƒIƒ“ƒGƒA[ GOA GOA ˆê–{“¹ˆê–{“¹ˆê–{“¹ HGMO HGMO H:G:M:O “Œ‹ž^–é’†DX TOKYONIGHTS URAYA URAYAOnlineTV ‚¤‚ç‚â X-GALLERY X-GALLERY X-GALLERY “ú–{l‚Ì‚¨‚µ‚Á‚±EX JapanesePeeEX ÔŠOü“ŽB‚̐¢ŠE XRAY XRAY EroxJapanZ ƒGƒƒbƒNƒXƒWƒƒƒpƒ“Z URAMOVIE URAMOVIE — ƒ€[ƒr[ HYPER— ƒrƒfƒI’ʐM PINKEYES pinkeyes o‰ï‚¢o‰ï‚¢o‰ï‚¢PURE21 ƒGƒƒAƒjƒ TV EroanimeTV ƒlƒbƒgƒRƒ~ƒbƒN NETCOMIC ƒhƒ‰ƒ€ƒJƒ“ <A HREF="http://nukiten.mpgjpg.com/"”²“VŽsê”²“VŽsê”²“VŽsênukiten
ƒAƒ_ƒ‹ƒg –³C³ — ƒrƒfƒI ƒƒŠ[ƒ^

............
........................................

Free Satellite TV, Dishes Network, Free Direct TV, Satellite TV and DirectTV, Direct TV and Satellite TV

Online FDA approved drugs: buspar pharmacy online buspar Didrex Prescription order didrex Fioricet USA Pharmacy Phentermine Pills buy phentermine Prozac Prescription online prozac Soma Sale online soma tenuate USA Pharmacy cheap tenuate Ultram Online buy ultram Cheapest Ultram online ultram Viagra On Line order viagra purchase celebrex online buy celebrex

Buy Fioricet cheap Fioricet zoloft price cheapest Zoloft Vasmin Pills order Vasmin Cheap Effexor buy effexor how does paxil work order Paxil Prozac order Prozac Buy Valtrex Cheap Ambien order Ambien ortho-evra Sale Buy Propecia online Propecia Cheap Sonata buy sonata

From usa: Aldara Online Aldara online Didrex Online buy didrex Buy Phentermine Levitra Pills Order Sonata sonata online Cheap Ultram how does wellbutrin work cheap Wellbutrin Cheapest Viagra viagra online Buy Xenical Xenical online Vasmin Prescription order Vasmin

We offer: Zithromax buy Zithromax Viagra USA Pharmacy order Viagra adipex USA Pharmacy online adipex Valtrex order Valtrex Propecia Pills order propecia Skelaxin Online Skelaxin online Buy Sonata online sonata tenuate Prescription ultram online shop buy ultram Order Ambien ambien online Didrex Sale Phendimetrazine Sale order Phendimetrazine

If you see this message - email to esliejikmertv@bk.ru - you'll not see it again.

Advertising is 85% confusion and 15% commission.

Great website, interesting read. Thanks!

Thanks for good site

Nice site, keep up the good work

The other day I was looking for some
phentermine , online pharmacy, diet pills, texas hold em poker, texas holdem poker, texas hold em poker , online poker rooms, diet pills, online pharmacy, online casino, texas holdem poker, online casinos , online gambling, phentermine, klingeltoene, handylogos, viagra , prescription drugs, carisoprodol, online poker.

Internet Casino play popular casino games for real money or just for fun;Online Casino Gambling - fun that never stops;Play Poker Online against real people in real time;Internet Poker - ultimate internet poker experience;Poker Tournaments - ultimate poker tournaments;Poker Rooms - join and start winning real cash today;Swinger Personals - Over 6 million active members!;Phentermine your source for cheap genuine medications and online prescriptions;Debt Consolidation - No Lender Fees and Guaranteed Lowest Cost;Swinger Personals;Home Equity Loans - Simple Process, Lowest Rates!Online Casino play popular casino games for real money or just for fun; Casino Gambling - fun that never stops; Internet Gambling - fun that never stops;Poker Online against real people in real time; Poker Games - ultimate internet poker experience; Online Poker Tournaments - ultimate poker tournaments; Online Poker Rooms - join and start winning real cash today; Swinger Ads - Over 6 million active members! Buy Phentermine Online your source for cheap genuine medications and online prescriptions; Credit Card Debt Consolidation - No Lender Fees and Guaranteed Lowest Cost; Home Equity Loan Rates - Simple Process, Lowest Rates! Spiele Spiele Portal; PC Spiele, Computerspiele Spiele Archiv;Swinger Ads 6 million swinger ads on your screen. Swinger Personals Why wait? Select from 6 million swinger personals. Spiele Download;Buy Allegra Online;Buy Ambien Online;Buy Bontril Online ;Buy Buspar Online;Buy Effexor Online;Buy Effexor XR Online;Buy Ionamin Online;Buy Paxil CR Online;Buy Paxil Online;Buy Prozac Online;Buy Wellbutrin Online;Buy Zoloft Online;Buy Zyrtec Online;Celexa;Lexapro;Wellbutrin SR;Buy Celebrex Online;Buy Condylox Online;Buy Diflucan Online;Buy Fioricet Online;Buy Imitrex Online;Buy Soma Online;Buy Tramadol Online;Buy Ultram Online;Buy Yasmin Online;Cyclobenzaprine;Flexeril;Retin-A;Skelaxin;Vioxx;Zanaflex;Renova;Buy Fioricet Online;Buy Phentermine Online;buy Diethylpropion online;Buy Adipex Online;Buy Xenical Online;Buy Ionamin Online;Buy Bontril Online;Buy celebrex Online;Buy vioxx Online;Buy ultram Online;Buy imitrex Online;Buy tramadol Online;Buy ultracet Online;Buy Ortho tri-cyclen Online;Buy triphasil Online;Buy ortho evra patch Online;Buy diflucan Online;Buy estradiol Online;Buy nordette 28 Online;Buy retin-a Online;Buy renova Online;Buy vaniqa Online;Buy ortho valtrex Online;Buy acyclovir Online;Buy aldara Online;Buy famvir Online;Buy condylox Online;Buy denavir Online;Buy zovirax Online;Buy cyclobenzaprine Online;Buy skelaxin Online;Buy zanaflex Online;Buy flexeril Online;Buy carisoprodol Online;Buy allegra Online;Buy flonase Online;Buy nasacort Online;Buy nasonex Online;Buy paxil Online;Buy prozac Online;Buy zoloft Online;Buy effexor Online;Buy wellbutrin Online;Buy celexa Online;Buy buspar Online;Buy buspirone Online;Buy ambien Online;Buy sonata Online;Buy prilosec Online;Buy nexium Online;Debt Consolidation;Debt Consolidation Loans;Credit Card Debt Consolidation;Home Equity Loans;Home Equity Loan Rates;Home Equity Loans Refinancing;Online Blackjack;Play Blackjack;Internet Casino;Internet Casino Gambling;Online Casino;Casino Gambling;Online Casino Gambling;Poker Online;Play Poker Online;Play Poker ;Online Poker;Online Poker Games;Poker Room;Poker Rooms;Video Poker;Free Video Poker;Poker Tournaments;Internet Poker;Poker Game;Poker Games;Online Poker Room;Online Slots;Free Slots;Casino Slots;Slots

Can't argue with the left veering right. Of course, candidates do whatever they think will make them popular.

Great site and information !

Great site and information !

hi there

okey

nice site

interesting

thanks

You know what's interesting about Washington? It's the kind of place where second-guessing has become second nature.

well said

Churches are hospitals for sinners, rather than hotels for saints.

Schaut Euch mal diese interessante Seite The ACLU said Thursday that the brief argues that peer-to-peer networks are speech-promoting technologies that have many noninfringing uses. Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 0 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 1 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 2 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 3 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 4 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 5 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 6 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 7

I search for forum like this long time.You website is very good!I will come next time !

adultfriendfinder Nokia Polyphonic Ringtones Friends Online Dildos London Accommodation Cheap Mobile Sagem Mobiles Online Betting Las Vegas Casinos Midi Ringtones Cheap Viagra Cheap Levitra http://www.adultfriendfindernow.com http://www.adultfriendsite.com http://www.dating999.com http://www.fabuloussextoys.com http://www.lookforukhotels.com http://www.mobilequicksale.com http://www.mobilesandringtones.com http://www.mycasinohome.com http://www.worldwidecasinosearch.com http://www.unbeatablecellphones.com http://www.cialis-express.com http://www.levitra-express.com http://www.adultfriendfindernow.com http://www.unbeatablemobiles.co.uk http://www.dating999.com http://www.fabuloussextoys.com http://www.mobilequicksale.com http://www.mobilesandringtones.com http://www.mycasinohome.com http://www.worldwidecasinosearch.com http://www.cialis-express.com http://www.levitra-express.com http://www.unbeatablecellphones.com

Any certainty is a delusion.

It's never right to say always, and always wrong to say never.

There is no end to the adventures we can have if we seek them with our eyes wide open.

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com

Cheap Propecia http://www.one-propecia.com/ is a new and effective treatment for male pattern baldness. View Online Propecia News. It is a capsule taken by mouth vs. a cream. A net increase in scalp hair count and hair regrowth was seen in over 80% of men for whom it was prescribed. Buy Propecia Now!

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com.

Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com!

Phentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

Online Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/

Do you know the difference between a failed interview and an amazing interview? Do you want to be able to answer even the toughest, meanest, and most low-down interview questions that you could ever be possibly asked? Do you want to go though your interview with confidence? Do you want to feel prepared, impress the interviewer, and win the job interview of your dreams? We provide you with job interview tips, visit http://www.job-interview-questions-tips.com

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com !

president of Fitness women smooth of all sizes a discrete, safe way to buy mens and womens sizes loads of choice beautiful intimate apparel online Lingerie hosiery department has everything gstring from fishnet stockings, to pantyhose, something for online shopping and plus size chemise returns everyday Big sport in US and abroad - buy online. Posters to buy and purchase at best prices Posters of Movies with large decorative selection put decoration posters and pictures frames and framed version of Film posters with christmas, actors actresses, anime, britney spears, lord of the rings, movie posters, car posters, model posters beach posters http://www.posters-land.com places and transportation - cars and such. good example of this exercise http://www.lingerie-land.com and many many people for mills and running for fitness keeping in shape trend is in-home fitness workout and home exercise equipment such as treadmills, home gyms and running machine http://www.treadmill-land.com sports elliptical trainers. "Many Internet vision fitness treadmills shoppers are discovering the benefits treadmills of online purchases of these items says me... titleist golf clubs golf balls golfing golfers on the tee and course paly the shot and approach bogey score http://www.golfing-land.com tiger woods discount golf clubs great low score on golf and golfing equipment.

Compare Cheap Phentermine Pharmacies

Buy Cheapest Phentermine & Compare Suppliers at a Glance

Airline Tickets
Web Hosting Companies
Cheap Domain Names
Cell Phones
Buy Books
Levitra
Cheap Viagra
Propecia
Cheapest Viagra
Buy Xenical
Renova
Ultram
Valtrex
Zyban
Link Exchange

Phentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

Phentermine Online and