November 11, 2003
The Tip of the Liberal Spear
The US and British armed forces have achieved more objectively liberal results in the past six months than anyone else I have seen in my lifetime.
Here is Tony Blair on Iraq:
The press is free; over 170 newspapers in circulation; the ban on satellite TV lifted so that Iraqis can hear America abused by Al-Jazeera and others - for having liberated them. Access to the internet is no longer forbidden. Nearly all schools and universities are open, as are hospitals and they are receiving medicine and supplies not on the basis of membership of the Ba'ath Party but on need. The canals are being cleared. The power and water supplies re-built. These supposedly evil Americans have voted $19 billion of their own money in aid: the Madrid Conference under the excellent guidance of Prime Minister Aznar has raised another $13 billion. Not a penny piece of Iraq's oil money has gone anywhere but into an account under the supervision of the IMF and UN.Are we sure a British citizen can’t run for president here? Isn’t there a loophole somewhere? Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 11, 2003 10:52 PM
Eastern europe? 1989ish?
It would be an amazing thing to see democracy flourish in Iraq and I would be happy to admit how wrong I was, but we're a long ways away. Optimistic developments aside, it now appears we're about to step up combat again. The Ba'athists deserve what they get but the civilians who will probably get caught up in it do not.
I do think the Iraqi people will be better off, in the long run, for our involvement. But it's not a sure thing yet (the story of the 20th century seems to be "it could always be worse"), and I also think we'll be worse off. Like most people I care most about my family and close friends; then my acquaintances; then my hometown; then my country; then humanity at large. Call this loyal or call it selfish, but it's human nature.
I also think that we could have done more good for humanity as a whole, and no harm to ourselves, in some other liberal cause.
Posted by: Katherine at November 11, 2003 11:14 PMEastern europe? 1989ish?
Ah yes. I momentarily forgot about that. I was a kid when that happened, and I barely paid attention to the world back then.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 11, 2003 11:27 PM"I do think the Iraqi people will be better off, in the long run, for our involvement."Do you think there will be another 300,000 mass graves uncovered 30 years from now? Will there be 2 more regional wars (lasting 8 years) and the equivalent of 12 years of sanctions?
It's reasonable to be skeptical about the immediate prospects for democracy and development in the short term (or long). But let's pause to consider by what we mean by "better off." If we set conditions that Iraq must turn into Sweden in the next to years or it's all for naught, then we most likely will fail.
However, all but the most pessimistic scenarios will result in Iraq being objectively "better off."
Posted by: John, Tokyo at November 12, 2003 12:21 AMJohn,
I think Katherine agrees with you. She did say Iraqis will be better off.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 12, 2003 12:28 AMAh, but will Iraq be $500 billion and a thousand US soldiers' lives better off, that is the question.
What's more, will the US be $500 billion and a thousand US soldiers' lives better off?
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 12, 2003 01:13 AMProgress isn't free, Kimmitt. Neither is freedom or democracy.
We lost a lot more than 1000 people building our own democracy here, and we lost a heckuva lot more doing regime-change in Germany.
The fact that it is not free is a poor argument against it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 12, 2003 01:26 AMKimmitt, I like numbers, but why $500 bil and not $87 bil, the amount passed?
I think 2597 is one of the latest death toll numbers from 9/11; I think that fewer US military deaths in Iraq for a 2 year period means a definite success in saving US lives; more success if less than 1000, and much more if less than 400 like so far.
By next Oct, the Iraqi middle class will be the middle class Arabs BEST OFF, relative to every measure of freedom, and among the best off measured by pure economics. If they are less than average after 4 years, I'd agree the Iraqi reconstruction is lousy; if avg Iraqi is worse off than average Iranian after 4 years, than Iraq liberation is on the failure side of success/ fail.
If Iraqis better off -- success. I'd bet on that one.
The flat rate tax will be surprisingly (to Leftists) effective at helping corporate Iraq organize profitable reconstruction and improvement activities.
Please suggest numbers you'd set to define, by Oct 2004, "Bush success in Iraq".
Tony Blair sure is eloquent.
Posted by: Tom Grey at November 12, 2003 01:55 AMOf course you're right, Michael. So it's fair to ask, what are Leftists willing to spend for freedom? For us in the US, for others in the world.
My anger at the Angry Left is that an honest discussion of realistic costs can't even begin, because the Left won't even agree booting Saddam was good. If not good, than anything is too expensive (logical. Wrong, but logical).
The Left's Bush-hate, and Bush's objective Iraq success in keeping the costs low, means if they admit booting Saddam was good, Bush did a fine job. The Left would have to agree that losing less than 400 soldiers to invade, occupy, and enforce regime change in 23 million pop. Iraq is an EXTRAORDINARY success. Unprecedented in history. Even Kimmitt uses 1000, which we're not even halfway to, yet.
Posted by: Tom Grey at November 12, 2003 02:04 AM14 years later in Slovakia, there are still problems of corruption, coalition breaking, unemployment (0-12-15-20-15% over past elections in 90, 92, 94, 98, 2002). And Slovaks (& Czechs)wonder why America didn't help more in 1968. Hungarians wonder why America didn't help more in 1956. We'll be in the EU in May 2004.
Most Eastern Europeans GREATLY respect Ronald Reagan, for having the courage to call the Evil Empire evil, and to militarily outspend the commies into velvet surrender (with little punishment to the guilty commie human rights violators, but mostly peaceful hand off of power.)
Reagan's famous off record: "I've declared the Soviet Union illegal, bombing will commence in 5 minutes" shows his true feelings. I remember thinking, is the US safer with him, and the commies worried that he WOULD push the button, or with Jimmy Carter, whom nobody in the world was afraid of or respected much as a president?
(Jimmy is the BEST former president, and was the most honest president, but still lousy.)
Posted by: Tom Grey at November 12, 2003 02:17 AMJimmy Carter was born to be an ex-President. Unfortunately, he had to President first.
Posted by: Zacek at November 12, 2003 03:47 AMBravo Michael for posting Blair's comments. I have been reading your excellent blog for some months now - directed to it by Norm Geras.
The hysteria that is developing over Bush's visit to the UK astounds me. And that it is the liberal/left that is most vociferous both shames and disgusts me. They have fallen into a moral abyss.
Steve
Posted by: Steve de Wijze at November 12, 2003 03:48 AMA "problem" with our political system (our legal system too) is that it is fundamentally an adversarial one.
If the Dems were to take a more reasonable, rational, and realistic position, e.g.; we are making progress, the casualty rates are the lowest ever for this type of mission, its good for the Iraqi people that Saddam is gone - then how could they possibly motivate the vast middle of the electorate that they need to win the Presidency? They would be, in essence, agreeing with the President and his policies.
If we were to graph the political hyperbole, I think we would find that it tracks pretty closely (increases in incidence and vitriol) to the time, in months, until the next election.
Posted by: steve at November 12, 2003 04:51 AMI like how Kimmitt manages to pull numbers out of the air. But wait, I forget: He's an economics student! One shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by: eric at November 12, 2003 05:11 AM"Not a penny piece of Iraq's oil money has gone anywhere but into an account under the supervision of the IMF and UN."
UN supervision, just like the "oil-for-food" program. At least that assures the palaces will be rebuilt.
Posted by: Bob71 at November 12, 2003 06:50 AMWhat strikes me as odd about the cries of Kimmitt and others regarding the cost of freeing Iraq in terms of money and soldiers' lives is that it was only a short time ago when saying something like that would have been labeled as an untoward brand of "Nationalism" by folks on the Left.
"How can you bring up money when people are being tortured by a Dictator?!!??," they'd wail.
Suddenly money is more important than freedom to the uberLeft.
Consequence of a GOP Presidency, I guess shrug
Posted by: Tim at November 12, 2003 07:02 AMBTW, Michael: are you calling a free press, open schools, and cleaner water "liberal results"?
Not that i really want you to explain that word again wink
Posted by: Tim at November 12, 2003 07:04 AMHow about an Austrian for Prez?
Posted by: JJ Walker at November 12, 2003 07:18 AMThis was at heart a liberal, idealistic war, and the best arguments against it are conservative ones. The hardest debate I had with someone in which I took the pro-war side was at a howard dean meetup event that i went to check out, in which I tried to argue the virtues of Iraqi regime change with a Republican (steve forbes supporter in 2000) who maintained it was "yet another big government social engineering project."
Someone asked a couple of weeks ago for an articulate presentation of the anti- regime change side (as opposed to ultraleft hysteria). Last weeks cover story in the National Journal contained perhaps the best one that i ever have read, entitled "why the french were right."
http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm
Posted by: Markus Rose at November 12, 2003 07:31 AMJJ Walker:
How about an Austrian for Prez?
------------
How about not even going there!_
But seriously, democracy does have its price. We are attempting an audacious reorientation of American foreign policy towards a more moral, and I suspect more sound, foreign policy based on the establishment of democratic governments worldwide.
Kimmit, we lost more men in the first four hours of the Normandy landings than we have lost up to now. It was worth the candle in 1944, I say that it is worth the candle now.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted by: section9 at November 12, 2003 07:31 AMJohn, I do think Iraq will be better off. In a vaccuum I would've supported this war for humanitarian reasons alone.
I'm not optimistic about a real democracy that controls the whole country effectively without violence, and with anything less I think we're worse off, because we'll get the blame.
The direct costs of the war itself were less than I expected. Part of the reason why is that I believed Bush et. al. that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, and I thought Saddam would use them against us (whether directly or through terrorists) if and only if attacked. I did not think he had an active nuclear program, I thought they were hyping that one up shamelessly. I did think we had to prevent him from getting the bomb even if that meant war.
So in a way the lack of WMD makes a pure humanitarian/democratization a better idea--but I don't appreciate being deceived by my leaders, whether it was deliberate or self-deception. And the cost to our alliances and credibility is severe. We've announced a doctrine of pre-emption, which is what Eisenhower and Truman etc. called "preventive war" and have always rejected. It's war because we say so--and our stated reasons turned out not to be true.
I also expected more civilian casualties than apparently occurred. Shock and awe worked on me, but it made me a little nauseous to see not just two buildings but a whole city on fire--I still can't believe how few people were killed in the air war; it's very heartening to me that since the end of the Cold War we've been building more accurate weapons that kill fewer people instead of ever bigger H bombs.
But I knew from the beginning that the occupation would be harder than the war.
Posted by: Katherine at November 12, 2003 07:44 AM“Like most people I care most about my family and close friends; then my acquaintances; then my hometown; then my country; then humanity at large. Call this loyal or call it selfish, but it's human nature.”
Interesting statement, and certainly true.
Can it not be said that, in the West generally and America in particular, the human problem of the personal wealth of money, time and tools has been largely solved? Can it then be further observed that with food, clothing. shelter, education, etc. largely solved within the sphere of family and close friends, acquaintances, the home town, and country, that humanity at large should be next to gain the focus of the successful? If so should not what brought us this success—from individual through to country—be made available to humanity at large? If not, why not?
I sometimes think the main problem with the angry left is the disconnect between their personal comfort and this next stage for humanity. Some kind of intellectual abdication would seem to be at work. Why don't they care?
Posted by: Stephen at November 12, 2003 07:59 AMIf so should not what brought us this success—from individual through to country—be made available to humanity at large?
Yes, absolutely. It's the "how" I wonder about.
I think the greatest things we could do to advance humanity at large would be to:
1. make more of a commitment to fighting AIDS in Africa. It's going to kill millions and millions, and destroy any hope of things getting better in most of a continent--especially some of the places that were most hopeful a few years back, like South Africa and Botswana.
Bush, BTW, has done more than Clinton. But it's still not nearly enough. $87 billion, right away, would save more lives than the Iraq war and kill no civilians and take no American lives and sow no hatred of us (deserved or not) in the Muslim world, and destroy no alliances.
2. "Never again," for real. Establish a precedent that the civilized world will not tolerate genocide anywhere. I don't hold out any hope that Iraq is such a precedent. I guess Michael probably does; I'd guess that's my main difference with him.
As for the "angry left", it depends, as ever, on whom you're talking about. If you're talking about ANSWER itself, they don't care or are so caught up in their own twisted crazy dreamworld that they can't think straight. But they're a tiny fringe not worth caring about.
If you're talking about the veterans of "Free Mumia" and "Liberate Palestine" and the anti-globalization protests, they're not evil but they're inexcusably naive. I don't know if they don't care or what, but they have given no thought to the questions you asked.
If you're talking about the majority of the people at the protests, they remember or were taught by their parents about the Vietnam war and some of the real human rights abuses of the U.S. during the Cold War, and they have an understandable and possibly correct distrust of the military as a means of bringing freedom to the oppressed. And a strong principle of "first, do no harm," which is actually a good idea but can be taken too far. And they were afraid that this war would make them and their families less safe.
The third group is probably far and away the largest. I would forget about ANSWER and the "embarrassing theatre" crew and work on them. And asking why they don't care about the Iraqi people, and making them think you see no difference between them and ANSWER, is a pretty ineffective way to do that.
Posted by: Katherine at November 12, 2003 08:30 AMYou may disagree about the third group being the largest at the protests. Okay. I was at one and you weren't, but it was the one where Bishop Tutu and Julian Bond spoke instead of Ramsey Clark, and it was the largest and least dominated by a screechy fringe. (There was one one-sided anti-Israeli speaker so I left during that--but that was towards the end of a day with dozens of speakers.)
You may also say that the third group had no business being at a protest organized by ANSWER. Well, you're right. But that milk is spilt; and many (most?) of them went in last October before it was widely publicized who ANSWER was. I wouldn't write people off permanently because they failed to do their homework once--I was fully acquanited with how annoying and stupid the very far left could be, but it would not have occurred to me that Stalinist Khmer Rouge and Milosevic apologists were leading the anti-war movement.
Anyway, if you disagree about my description of the third group as the majority of protesters, I think it is much clearer that it describes the majority of people who opposed the war, most of whom did not go to any protests.
Posted by: Katherine at November 12, 2003 08:46 AMKimmit,
you think you're on the high ground for supporting a unilateral pullout. You're for "peace" after all. So you probably support clowns like Kucinich.
And you cite numbers and casualties, but you don't really care about the money, or the dead Americans. The Left has never cared about the cost. But we do, and the Left knows it. That's why Kimmit throws out those ludicrous numbers.
Sorry Kimmit, your numbers would have more impact if they weren't so hysterical.
But we understand the stakes, and Kimmit doesn't. He thinks he's for peace, but he's really for chaos (decades of it if we pull out). And when that chaos truly and irrevocably descends on Iraq, Kimmit and his Leftist conspiracists can point their fingers and say, "see, look what the Americans did! They destroyed Iraq and then abandoned her," proof that they were right all along about "Bush", and "Haliburton", "imperialism."
No Kimmit. You and your side will be opposed every inch of the way.
Michael,
on a previous thread, you wanted to distinguish between the "Hard Left," and the "soft Left", and assorted Liberal hangers on.
ANSWER organizes those hate fests and rallies, provides the speakers. And the soft Left provides the bodies. Isn't that true?
Posted by: David at November 12, 2003 09:15 AMIt is unbelievable to me that anyone opposing the war would continue to minimize the horrific nature of Saddam's regime, but I just had an exchange of "viewpoints" on Calpundit that left be stunned that such an argument could be put forward. Here's what someone wrote in response to me when I said it was hard to believe that Amnesty International opposed the war so vigorously:
"You imagine that Iraq was a pit of blood - Saddam roaming from house to house killing people. As in every war zone, dictatorship, or occupied area, people live their lives. People get married, people have children, people laugh, people cry - you get the idea."
Yes, it was a pit of blood!
I don't want to quote out of context, but if you want to see some genuinely loopy arguments re Saddam not being so bad after all, you can read the thread directly at http://www.calpundit.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2607. These comments and my incredulous dissents are near the end of this long and pretty interesting thread.
Posted by: Daniel Calto at November 12, 2003 09:27 AMThey don't care because ... they feel Bush doesn't really care, enough. Get it?
If the occupation costs less than 1000 American lives over 2 years, it's pretty low cost, historically. If we add Iraqi lives, we also have to balance against the Iraqis who would have likely died under sanctions, at some 5000/ month rate (while Saddam built palaces with the palace food for oil program).
I'm afraid Bush was deceiving himself & his own admin, thinking there WERE more weapons; maybe Saddam's weapons builders were lying to Saddam?
But it's time Human Rights got a real champion, of idealistic action, and not Kissingeristic realpolitik acceptance of dictators.
I wish NATO would expand to include all democracies on Earth, and push more for enforcement of rights, especially for free speech (pretty easily tested); thereby reducing the pompous importance of dictatorship influenced UN.
Posted by: Tom Grey at November 12, 2003 09:31 AM"If the occupation costs less than 1000 American lives over 2 years, it's pretty low cost, historically. If we add Iraqi lives, we also have to balance against the Iraqis who would have likely died under sanctions, at some 5000/ month rate (while Saddam built palaces with the palace food for oil program)."
I hated the sanctions, which were/are one of the main reasons that people see/saw U.S. motives in the Middle East as being so malevolent. I've never been able to figure out exactly what Iraq officially was expected to do in order for the sanctions to be lifted. (Being unable to prove they did not have WMD's should have been grounds for war, not sanctions, in the nineties.) Anyone with facts, please enlighten.
Oddly enough, I first heard about the 5,000 deaths a month from, you guessed it, Chomsky.
Was he right on that one?
Oddly enough, I first heard about the 5,000 deaths a month from, you guessed it, Chomsky.
Was he right on that one?
It depends on whether you trust Saddam to give you factual information. Those numbers were provided by official Iraqi sources. Did you trust Baghdad Bob?
Here's a good article on how they manipulated information for their purposes (and Leftists like Chomsky devoured it):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F25%2Fwirq25.xml
Posted by: David at November 12, 2003 09:57 AMTom:
I think that there are a number of human rights organizations don't accept dictators in a realpolitik way, from Human Rights Watch to the recent (harrowing) report on North Korea by David Hawk, which is available at http://www.hrnk.org
/hiddengulag/toc.html. I think there are many people active in human rights who are the antithesis of such soft-headed views as those seemingly in the ascendant at Amnesty's.
I certainly don't have a problem when Amnesty and others critique the death penalty, etc. or criticize U.S. policies. But once again, when an organization makes more statements about the horrors of British use of cluster bombs and harsh rights violations of U.S. detainees in Guantanamo than about Saddam's brutal regime, something is seriously screwed up. Reading through Amnesty's many statements on Iraq, one is struck by the befuddlement and lack of clarity in so many of their statements. yes, they know Saddam is bad, but can't let go of the idea that the U.S. and U.K. are somehow "nearly" as bad.
Like many anti-war arguments (Not In My Name!), Amnesty's stance represents a failure of the moral imagination, a terrible double standard, and a narrow fixation on the flaws in one's own society. It's more about feeling good about oneself--at least I'm not responsible for the deaths in Baghdad--than about figuring out what is the best of two imperfect courses to take.
Posted by: Daniel Calto at November 12, 2003 10:39 AM
Oddly enough, I first heard about the 5,000 deaths a month from, you guessed it, Chomsky.
Was he right on that one?
As I understand it, them answer would be yes and no.
The autonomous Kurdish north, due to a frankly ridiculous technicality, was also under sanctions - and once the battling factions calmed down and formed their government, I don't think they saw any such death figures as a result - and enjoyed prosperity relative to the Saddam controlled south. That being said, most of those deaths, therefore, can be laid at Saddams door as opposed to the UN or the US - but that doesn't change the fact that they were mostly pointless, except in from a purely security-driven perspective.
Posted by: Jonas Cord at November 12, 2003 11:04 AMRead about Saddam's dead baby parades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F25%2Fwirq25.xml
Posted by: David at November 12, 2003 11:08 AM...this even all assumes that it won't come tumbling down like a house of cards after any US pullout, which really isn't a valid assumption; that risk is most certainly there.
Again, the question never was, "Do we invade Iraq, spend some time, lives, and money, and get a democracy?" The question was, "Do we invade Iraq, spend some time, lives, and money, and roll the dice?"
We are quite stuck now, though. If we pull out, anarchy is more or less the inevitable result. If we stay, we endure increasing attacks and frustration, which will inevitably lead to atrocities (soldiers are human beings too, and they have their own capacities to endure violence without retaliating excessively), all of which in the context of an occupation run by a man who, I believe, does not share this board's commitment to democracy and human rights.
I wish I could recommend a policy shift which at least improves our odds.
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 12, 2003 12:08 PMKimmitt, life is a "roll of the dice." It is clear, however, that the Iraqi people now have a chance at democracy and freedom, whereas before they had none. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." Voltaire
Posted by: Phil Smith at November 12, 2003 12:30 PM"Are we sure a British citizen can?t run for president here? Isn?t there a loophole somewhere?" - Michael.
Please, I do hope that was more than half joking, Michael. Gunban socialist Blair? No freaking way - I happen to enjoy my 2nd ammendment rights, thank you. ;]
Posted by: Ironbear at November 12, 2003 12:42 PMPhil,
it's all a roll of the dice. Leaving Saddam in power, with nukes in his near future, sitting on the world's oil supply, that also was a roll of the dice.
The question is, do we pay the price now? or later.
Posted by: David at November 12, 2003 12:59 PM"I happen to enjoy my 2nd ammendment rights, thank you"
You mean the right to join a well-regulated militia, Ironbear?
According to what I have read, United States v Miller is the controlling Supreme Court precedent on interpreting the Second Amendment. It's holding is clear - there is no individual right to own any type of weapon.
i don't happen to be very enthusiastic about most gun laws -- with 100 million plus guns out there already, laws against them do not seem to be terribly useful. Plus I want to get people with gun racks to vote against republicans. But its not a constitutional issue.
Posted by: markus rose at November 12, 2003 01:15 PMYup. leaving Saddam in power was a roll of the dice, but the dice were loaded, they came up snake eyes all the time.
Posted by: bilhedrick at November 12, 2003 01:23 PMAccording to what I have read, United States v Miller is the controlling Supreme Court precedent on interpreting the Second Amendment.
That ruling was reversed. Sorry to dissapoint you.
Posted by: David at November 12, 2003 01:35 PMMarkus,
My mistake, it was not reversed. But the ruling was narrowly tailored to govern "registration" of said weapons, not broadly tailored to cover the issue of "individual rights to bear arms."
Therefore, the individual rights exist, but so does the government have the authority to register.
Posted by: David at November 12, 2003 01:43 PMIronbear,
I would vote for Tony Blair in an instant if given the chance.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 12, 2003 02:17 PMIt is clear, however, that the Iraqi people now have a chance at democracy and freedom, whereas before they had none.
Right, but the security of the US people did not depend on whether or not the Iraqi people had a chance at democracy and freedom before. I know, it's gauche to discuss US interests on this board, but we took a tremendous risk here.
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 12, 2003 02:57 PMI know, it's gauche to discuss US interests on this board, but we took a tremendous risk here.
Unless of course a nuclear Saddam was sitting on top of the world's oil supply. That's no longer a possibility.
Posted by: David at November 12, 2003 03:00 PMPresident Thatcher...Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Seriously, Tony Blair has been an extremely pleasant surprise to me. I long suspected his Europhilia and his mushy "Third Way" indicated an un-British lack of spine. Instead he has proven to be arguably the most courageous world leader extant.
Posted by: Oregon Dan at November 12, 2003 03:22 PMOh, but our security absolutely depends on the security and stability of that region. You may reasonably disagree on the efficacy of the current policy, but to deny that we have distinct strategic interests in the region is just sap-headed.
Posted by: Phil Smith at November 12, 2003 03:22 PMRe: strategic interests. I'm never been able to understand this. Oil being a fungible commodity, how would Saadam have been able to sell it to us for any length of time at a higher price, assuming he would have somehow been able to fulfill his purported pan-Arab ambitions?
Also, in order to be a strategic threat to the US, he would have had to have been a strategic threat to other regional powers. But if he was, why did so few of them support not only regime change but also the sanctions. I don't buy the arab street thesis, the syrians and saudi's certainly don't have problems cracking down on dissent in other instances.
Even before our pre-war intelligence was found to be faulty, Saadam as a genunine strategic threat always seemed to me to be much less grounded in reality than the other reasons for war:
1) humanitarian
2) chance for democratic arab state
3) post- 9/11 need to "hit somebody"
4) opportunity to take troops out of saudi arabia without looking weak.
Paul Berman: Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others.
Discuss.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 12, 2003 04:10 PMTheir freedom will enable them to make inquiry into what makes for good lives. This is what any people will first do with their freedom, of course. Now, the facts about human beings are such that belligerence, as an overall strategy for a society, does not tend to make for good lives for the members of the society. So, In freeing other societies from their oppressive structures, we put in motion the development of ways of life that do not include killing us.
Posted by: Jim at November 12, 2003 05:31 PMI am for the freedom of others; certainly, I advocate no action which will diminish it.
You may reasonably disagree on the efficacy of the current policy, but to deny that we have distinct strategic interests in the region is just sap-headed.
These are different things -- we have strategic interests, of course, but Iraq could have continued to be a dictatorship for the next ten years without US security being significantly harmed. Now, though, if Iraq is a dictatorship in a year, we will be badly harmed.
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 12, 2003 06:14 PM"..inevitably lead to atrocities..."
Says who? You obviously have no f*****g idea of how soldiers are trained these days, nor who currently makes up our current military. They're not the conscripts of My Lai, however much you wish that to be true, and even THAT was a aberration for the US military of the Vietnam war.
Posted by: eric at November 12, 2003 06:27 PMOur experiment in bringing democracy to Germany and Japan has on balance worked out pretty well. Europe is enjoying the longest period of full peace in its history with no possibility of war on the radar. That has been good for U.S. security.
The Mideast has one democracy, Israel. Let's see what happens when there are two.
And Kimmitt, quit making stuff up. It's getting really annoying.
Posted by: Fred Boness at November 12, 2003 08:20 PM"Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others."
IMHO, it seems inescapable that this course is the only workable one available for the achievement of world peace.
But what does it mean? It implies that the vast preponderance of those free will, at least pari passu, not want to fight or control and conquer, and also perhaps that they really like or value freedom.
But, then, what is freedom? Here I will venture into la-la land: the primary freedom is freedom of thought and expression, a right which looses free thought which, IMO, is in turn the basic constituent of the human being [free thought is what we are - we are endowded with it as a rather mysterious result of evolution]. Free thought, once practiced, tends to eschew conquest and aggression as the latter are not relevent to it, at least if basic human needs have been met: one who is materially comfortable and allowed free expression and thought tends to not want to "take over the world", so to speak, at risk of death and/or the destruction or control of others, especially since the latter have no bearing upon free expression or free thought except to invite their elimination.
Of course, mutants such as Osama et.al. will spring up and will need to be extirpated.
However, obviously integral to freedom also is the material freedom alluded to. What is this? It is at least the availability of whatever satisfies "basic needs". People well supplied with that which provides for these needs presumably will not want to fight very much on a hegemonic level.
What system seems most likely to be able to supply these needs? Capitalism, with its "free" enterprise, that is, a system in which wealth creation is allowed and encouraged, recalling that wealth creation means, quite often, creating wealth [basic need supplies and more] for large masses of people through innovation and invention even if - perish the thought - some innovators and entrepenuers get filthy wealthy in doing so. They should be allowed to, as this is a form of freedom also which seems to be rooted in current human nature as a largely positive force: the drive to innovate and invent, and often the desire to profit from it. Thus, given the natures of these freedoms as they relate to humans considered en masse, I agree that the spread of freedom means an increase in safety proportionally. If elected, I promise....
The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to join a militia. It guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. The reference to a militia does not limit this right, it explains its purpose. Geez, can't you people read plain English?
The Miller case deals only with what weapons the Second Amendment applies to, and ruled that it guaranteed a right to keep and bear only those arms that someone might need for militia duty. The gun at issue in Miller, a saweed off shotgun, was not such a weapon.
Applying Miller today, I guess the 2A guarantees my right to own just about any handgun, sniper rifle, and full-auto assault rifle that I might care to haul around. It probably also guarantees me the right to own a light machine gun, and maybe even some of the crew-served weapons.
Gun-banners should read and think about what Miller says before citing it to support restrictions on gun rights.
Posted by: R C Dean at November 13, 2003 03:53 AMMarkus, I think you may be laboring under a misapprehension of what strategy is all about. I infer this from the fact that your reason #4 is itself a strategic goal. For that matter, so's #2. Removing our troops from Saudi soil and the example of a democratic arab state are clearly strategic. In fact, your point about the resistance of the region to our invasion is also strategic -- they, unlike what appears to be the majority of Americans left and right, realize that the gun is loaded and pointed at their heads. They didn't want that. That's strategy.
On that note, why does Kimmmitt think that Iraq remaining a dictatorship for the indefinite future wouldn't harm us (he's wrong), but a return to a dictatorship by the Iraqis would hurt us a lot more (he's right)? Because of the deterioration instead of improvement (or simply maintaining status quo) in the strategic situation. Strategic situations do NOT remain constant in the face of inaction. There are, after all, more actors on the stage than just Uncle Sam, and they haven't been sitting still. A decade of inaction put us into a substantially worse strategic position.
Posted by: Phil Smith at November 13, 2003 06:46 AMJust heard General Abazid speak about Iraq.
He basically said that there are only about 5000 well organized but decentralized cells causing havoc, that's it. They get aid from outside Iraq of course but they are the main cause of the terrorism in Iraq.
He also said that Saddam Hussein is the worst military planner and general he has witnessed and should not be given any credit at all for planning anything like this.
I go back and forth. Just when I think maybe they're shifting the tides in Iraq for the worse, now I think maybe wey're really close to turning a corner and the French, Germans and Russians are just hoping that before we do we look really bad and give up most control, so we can't get any credit for any positive results there.....
I don't know.
Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2003 12:16 PMWe've bet our international credibility on turning Iraq into a democratic state after a successful intervention. If we leave now, and Iraq turns into a fundamentalist republic or a massive civil war, we will look either like we do not have the strength to impose our will on Iraq or like the invasion's humanitarian justification was a crock.
Neither of these dangers existed while the US contained Iraq.
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 13, 2003 01:03 PMKimmit,
The argument being (and how about we just agree that reasonable people can disagree about the merits of this argument), is that given the tendency of political will to erode over time, the porosity of sanctions and import-restriction regimes, Hussein's past behavior, the question then becomes not one of containment, but one of when we fight the inevitable war.
The projection is that SH would continue to keep the WMD infrastructure in place until the day the sanctions lifted (and they were certainly heading that direction) at which point he would then start re-arming. This, plus his historically abysmal record of risk-assessment and poor judgement further suggest he'd do something stupid again.
The open question becomes this, do we go now, or when he's rearmed (with WMD of some sort), the no-fly zones are shut down, and increasing political pressure has cost us staging areas in Saudi, or do we go when we still have the post 9/11 political capital to go ahead. Furthermore, given the possibility of going, will democratizing Iraq and removing the need to base troops in Saudi provide dividends in the War on Terror.
Those are some of the considerations, and I assume you've done your own study and come up with different conclusions. I merely wanted to highlight that the concern you bring, while valid, does not exist in a vacuum.
Posted by: Anticipatory Retaliation at November 13, 2003 01:52 PMYou should talk to a broad spectrum of Brits before jumping on that, Michael. And spend a great deal of time browsing Libertarian Samizdata... as well as reading other sources. As a proponent of intrusive government, Blair's about as anti-liberty and far left as you'll get - and I thought you were unhappy with the Left. ;]
Academic: he's not qualifed to run for high office here, thank gods.
"You mean the right to join a well-regulated militia, Ironbear? - Marcus.
Nooooo... Marcus. Reffer to RC Dean on his response, he laid it out pretty well. Or go read for further study. "Militia" in context is defined as every able bodied citizen able to bear arms, provisioned with the current ordnance of the time. Check Lott and other constitutional scholars.
And it is a Constitutional issue, hate to disillusion you. One of the main ones, like your freedom of speech.
Democrat's positions on firearms laws are a main reason they keep losing voters. [Not that Bush is offering much better right now]
Posted by: Ironbear at November 13, 2003 06:48 PMNeither of these dangers existed while the US contained Iraq.
I disagree. The US had a considerable amount of political capital invested in its then-current policy of regime change (yes, it was US policy before W took office) and containment. Containment was falling apart, both on the ground due to rampant smuggling abetted by "allies" such as the French and Germans, and in the UN as calls for normalizing and dropping sanctions increased. Regime change was not moving an inch.
Before Bush finished the Gulf War, the US was on the brink of losing it by inches. Thus, by finishing the war, Bush achieved the goals of the Gulf War, and saved America's political bacon and credibility, as well as achieving the humanitarian and national security goals implied by regime change.
The price, of course, was that now we have to reconstruct Iraq. But to pretend that America had nothing to lose in Iraq before Bush finished the war is simply wrong.
Posted by: R C Dean at November 14, 2003 04:33 AMThe Kay report makes clear that while containment may have had its issues, it certainly accomplished its main goal of keeping Saddam impotent.
Further, we could easily have spent 9/11 capital on justifying the containment regime (or even made a batch of very nice "tear down this wall" type speeches, shaming our allies who were allowing their various corporations to profit from Iraqi misery). And once we had spent a couple of years with enough troops in Afghanistan, doing away with the last of the Taliban and engaging in some raids into Pakistan as appropriate, we'd have continued to retain the world's good will in both areas.
At that point, we could have assembled a multinational force, not for the invasion, which would be mostly a US show, but for the occupation, which would have spread out the risk, gotten us folks with the right cultural background, and given us access to some vaguely sane planning process.
Hell, if Saddam actually had made some kind of non-defensive threat, that would have gotten the job done. Or we could have justified it on the whole "supports Palestinian terrorism, and the French refuse to close his accounts" thing. It would have taken more time, but under those circumstances, our loss of the peace would not have been nearly so overwhelmingly likely.
This board has mentioned various reasons to stay the course, and they're all quite valid. The problem is, the American public obviously was not sold on a war and occupation which would require such a staying. Half of Americans surveyed were of the opinion that we should not have given President Bush $87 billion dollars for reconstruction. Americans were sold on a short, sharp war with a short, cheap occupation based on a massive threat to US security. They got one of the three, and they may demand that they get the second due to the lack of the third. That's what happens when you start wars based on lies. People don't support them when they get difficult. It's not the American public's fault -- it's the fault of the liars.
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 14, 2003 08:23 AMWhile it's reasonable that reportage is focused on continuing casualties and the security situation in Iraq, the economic indicators paint a more optimistic picture. The chart in today's NYT Op-Ed page is an interesting one, and worth checking out.
Teachers and doctors, for instance, are being paid 8-10 times what they earned under the Baathists. Ultimately, an improved economic situation in Iraq will go a long way in improving the overall outcome of the Iraqi experiment.
Posted by: Daniel Calto at November 14, 2003 08:56 AMKimmitt:
Thanks for laying out a somewhat plausible alternative scenario to how the U.S. could have approached Iraq. I think if opponents to the war had taken such an approach rather than the "Not In Our Name" and "No War for Oil Barons" nonsense, perhaps it might have had more influence.
By being so intransigent, and signalling that they would never authorize military action, the French in particular made such an approach far less likely. People can talk about how Bush mishandled the run-up to the war diplomatically, but Bush did go to the U.N. and threw down a clear challenge to the organization.
Chirac and Schroeder, for very narrow tactical political reasons, and in a breathtakingly cynical manner, chose to oppose Bush not simply on the merits but strictly for domestic political consumption. Saddam had played the split in the SC like Minnesota Fats for a 12-year period, and Germany and France's semiotics during the period only indicated to Saddam that his tactic would work yet again. I don't even want to mention the unconfirmed reports that Franch and Russian envoys actually met with Saddam just before the war and told him that the invasion would never happen. At the point of maximum tension, France did (very briefly) hold the course of the war in balance, but by acting so irresponsibly they certainly forced Bush's hand and sped up, rather than slowed down, the supposed "rush to war." This was a massive failure of diplomacy, alright, but not simply of U.S. diplomacy, but of the fractious and ill-disciplined Security Council, which couldn't get it together. Even Kofi Annan has said that the SC and UN need fundamental restructuring. The U.N.'s own dithering and illogical approach made it a self-emasculating entity--it gravely weakened its own authority, and then whined about its own lack of influence.
Bad idea, badly executed.
As far as the Kay report making clear that Sanctions kept Saddam impotent, I think you're overstating. Saddam was clearly holding high-level talks with the North Koreans re getting Taepodong-class missiles from 2001-2002, which would have busted sanctions. If the U.S. had not forced the issue, the sanctions could have continued to be violated rather easily, and would likely have been relaxed over time due to French/Russian self-interest and diplomatic pressure. By 2005, he could have had offensive missile and a revivified biowarfare program, and perhaps even some kind of nuclear capability. I'm glad a nuclear-armed Saddam is an extremely remote possibility now.
Posted by: Daniel Calto at November 14, 2003 09:16 AMChirac and Schroeder, for very narrow tactical political reasons, and in a breathtakingly cynical manner, chose to oppose Bush not simply on the merits but strictly for domestic political consumption.
I think you sell these men short; when 80% of one's population is against an action, even the most determined of men must take a moment to assess whether they should act as representatives of their people's will or make their own judgements.
These were not narrow tactical reasons -- supporting Bush's plan to invade Iraq in Europe would not only have been political suicide but also a disservice to their peoples.
That said, the Kay report makes clear that Saddam sought missiles from North Korea and even paid for them, but could not accept delivery because the North Koreans feared detection. The controls worked; Saddam did not have anything resembling a good chance at developing nuclear weapons -- and his biowarfare capacities would remain pathetically small at best.
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 14, 2003 10:22 AMIt seems clear Kimmett supports politicians callously pandering to and encouraging the most regressive and anti-American elements of society. Anti-Americanism was present and growing fast in Europe long before 9/11. German pacifism is fine as long as it isn't enabled at the foreign policy level by shallow and opportunistic politicians. True leadership there should involve some consistent effort by the political elite to reducing anti-American biases and accepting responsibility for their domestic problems, perhaps even carefully considering the positive gift that exporting American democracy and military presence has been for them. But let's just have faith that the sanctions were keeping Saddam contained indefinitely - lalalalala... because the world might oppose toppling a menace. Even Clinton wasn't falling for that idiocy, but apparently Howard Dean buys it hook line and sinker.
Posted by: d-rod at November 14, 2003 11:54 AMOf course, there were no basically good Iraqi policies; only judgements between choices likely to yield bad results. It was a bind; it's just that it wasn't a bind that cost quite so much in terms of money, lives, and prestige until Bush changed that.
Posted by: Kimmitt at November 14, 2003 01:43 PMPersonally, I don’t think it was Bush himself as much as it was the perception of Bush. The Europeans had been getting a steadily rising dose of America the bully, America the arrogant, America the aloof… from the U.N. and much of the opinion-shaping media so “prestige” was in decline before Bush 43 came along. His image as a religious conservative as opposed to Clinton’s as intelligent and charming helped cause the Euro-rhetoric to go into overdrive. Perceptions seem to matter more than reality to many people, so cooperation on Iraq in a meaningful multilateral sense was probably doomed before it began. I agree it was a tough bind.
Posted by: d-rod at November 14, 2003 04:24 PM
Kimmitt:
Selling Chirac and Schroeder short? That's a good one. Chirac is a throughly corrupt and cynical pol, deeply involved in both selling Iraq nuclear technology and in the Total Fina Elf scandal; he makes Marion Barry look good by comparison, and likely would have been indicted if he hadn't escaped prosecution by being elected and gaining immunity. He was damn lucky hsi oppnent was none other than that great representative of the French Jean Marie Le Pen.
Schroder is a craven and shallow political opportunist who fanned the cheap flames of anti-Americanism to get elected by a whisper after we did more than anyone for the last 50 years to make Germany strong and secure, thereby betraying the alliance that had stood the test of time. Think Bush's approval ratings are bad these days? Check out Chirac's and Schroder's.
Chirac and DeVillepin, in particular, did not simply disagree with the U.S., but deliberately and consistently undermined our diplomatic efforts at consensus with their shallow and ultimately ridiculous multipolar approach. Chirac arrogantly presumes to speak for all of Europe, then castigates and threatens the new E.U. members when they dare to dissent from him. He's an arrogant and cynical old SOB, and I bet the French will get rid of him long before we get rid of Bush.
Posted by: Daniel Calto at November 15, 2003 12:59 PMGo Daniel, keep up the good work!
Kimmit, your fairly reasonable alternative assumes sanctions. It's a 100% sure bet that, after Bush's successful Afghanistan regime change, had he not gone against Saddam, the same anti-Bush protesters would be arguing against continuint the sanctions. Your analysis fails, within 2-4 years, without sanctions & controls.
Especially the type of "tight controls" that Clinton put on No. Korea.
Unusual ideas can make enemies.
Posted by: Niblock Jasper at December 9, 2003 06:45 PMOnly when we have nothing to say do we say anything at all.
Posted by: Bergman Peter at December 10, 2003 09:55 AMDreams are made to be destroyed. Nightmares are forever.
Posted by: Horwitz Russell at December 20, 2003 01:50 PMHe does not seem to me to be a free man who does not sometimes do nothing.
Posted by: Becker Maki at January 9, 2004 12:18 AMblue plastic coffee
Posted by: phentermine at February 15, 2004 04:52 PMblue plastic coffee
Posted by: fioricet online at February 17, 2004 08:04 AMYo Fozzy check this out: if your looking for the best dating
service try this site dating
services you gotta be tired of feeling like the third wheel
If you need cheap flexeril then you might
want to buy flexeril from us the flexeril
experts ;)
Try skelaxin it's the best prescription drug there is. Make
Posted by: skelaxin at February 24, 2004 10:11 AMPlaying casinos online can be risky. Make sure that they are legit casinos.
Posted by: on line casinos at February 24, 2004 10:59 AMReports of online gambling
are rampant. So be careful not to get caught up in gambling
online.
You know sleeping pills
can be addictive right? Did you know Ambien
gets you high?
If you like generic firoicet you will
love this drug. Its called butalbital
and its sweeping the pill popper inner sanctum like wild fire.
If you can't afford phentermine
you have to re evaluate your career. If you need Phentermine you need to re-evaluate
your diet.
I love tramadol even though
I have no idea what it is. And this sentence is just filler for the drug.
Taking diet pills can be dangerous.
Be cautious when popping these little guys.
The fountain of youth is known as HGH
it's a hormone secreted by your glands. It is also known as human
growth hormone.
Again stating that I have tramadol but
have no idea what it is.
Playing online blackjack
is better than playing it in the casino. Of course thats my opinion.
Try skelaxin it's the best prescription drug there is. Make sure it's cheap skelaxin though because no one wants to over pay. Rubin the painter
Posted by: skelaxin at March 3, 2004 07:26 AMPlaying casinos online can be risky. Make sure that they are legit casinos.
Posted by: casinos at March 3, 2004 08:45 AMReports of online gambling
are rampant. So be careful not to get caught up in gambling
online.
You know sleeping pills
can be addictive right? Did you know Ambien
gets you high?
If you like generic firoicet you will
love this drug. Its called butalbital
and its sweeping the pill popper inner sanctum like wild fire.
If you can't afford phentermine
you have to re evaluate your career. If you need Phentermine you need to re-evaluate
your diet.
I love tramadol even though
I have no idea what it is. And this sentence is just filler for the drug.
Taking diet pills can be dangerous.
Be cautious when popping these little guys.
There are no weird people - some just require more understanding.
Posted by: Schlesinger Diana at March 16, 2004 07:34 PMhi from Humberto Kiran cool amazing page see a later or Tomorrow
Posted by: Free nude pics of kobe tai at April 2, 2004 05:26 PMLive your beliefs and you can turn the world around.
Posted by: Robinson Michael at April 28, 2004 04:51 AMBelieving in God does not require believing in religion.
Posted by: Graziano Laura at April 28, 2004 04:51 AMIt is only the most intelligent and the most stupid who are not susceptible to change.
Posted by: Levine Carol at May 19, 2004 08:42 AMIt is dangerous to confuse children with angels.
Posted by: Brockway Kim at May 19, 2004 10:51 PMDo give books - religious or otherwise - for Christmas. They're never fattening, seldom sinful, and permanently personal.
Posted by: Kanegis Aura at June 2, 2004 07:18 AMNever underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Posted by: Thomas Jennifer at June 2, 2004 07:10 PMFind your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete!
Posted by: click here at June 14, 2004 06:58 PMHmmmmm interesting
zapraszamy po czadowe gry java na gry java nokia,
po dzwonki polifoniczne do dzwonki
polifoniczne sony ericsson Turnieje odbêd¹ siê w budynku Wy¿szej Szko³y Ekonomiczno-Informatycznej w Warszawie, znajduj¹cej siê na warszawskim Ursynowie, 50 metrów od stacji metra Stok³osy oraz po komputery laptopy notebooki
tanie laptopy.
You can find the best nokia ringtones and logo at
nokia ringtones, get the best melodies for your
nokia mobile phone and get cool nokia logo at nokia logos and polyphonic ringtone and backgrounds now http://www.nokia-ringtone-logo.com
!!!
Posted by: dzwonki at June 18, 2004 12:26 PMHmmmmm interesting
zapraszamy po czadowe gry java na gry java nokia,
po dzwonki polifoniczne do dzwonki
polifoniczne sony ericsson Ju¿ jutro, 18 czerwca, odbêdzie siê turniej dla graczy Warsaw Games Day 2004. oraz po komputery laptopy notebooki
tanie laptopy.
You can find the best nokia ringtones and logo at
nokia ringtones, get the best melodies for your
nokia mobile phone and color backgrounds for your Nokia, Samsung, Sagem, Sony Ericsson, Siemens, Motorola, Panasonic, Sharp and Sendo mobile phone. and get cool nokia logo at nokia logo and backgrounds now http://www.nokia-ringtone-logo.com Polyphonic ringtone at polyphonic ringtone ringtones polyphonic and monophonic
!!!
Posted by: dzwonki polifoniczne at June 18, 2004 01:56 PMftv girls isabel
ftv girls layla
ftv girls lexy
ftv girls michelle
ftvgirls movies
ftv girls movies
ftvgirls pics
ftv girls pics
ftvgirls pictures
ftv girls pictures
ftv girls rachel
ftv girls rose
ftv girls shyla
ftv girls sindy
ftv girls trailers
tvgirls video clips
ftvgirls videos
boobizon
boob izon
imlive
sexaffair
sex affair
sex affair pics
sex affair pictures
supermen
xxxdate
xxx date
xxx date pics
xxx date pictures
free jordan capri
jordancapri
jordan capri
jordan capri galleries
jordan capri gallery
jordan capri movie clips
jordancapri movies
jordan capri movies
jordan capri mpegs
jordan capri pic gallery
jordan capri pics
jordancapri pictures
jordan capri pictures
jordan capri pussy
jordan capri video clips
Hmmmmm interesting
zapraszamy po czadowe gry java na gry java,
po dzwonki polifoniczne do dzwonki
polifoniczne lub dzwonki polifoniczne".Turnieje odbêd¹ siê w budynku Wy¿szej Szko³y Ekonomiczno-Informatycznej w Warszawie, znajduj¹cej siê na warszawskim Ursynowie, 50 metrów od stacji metra Stok³osy ." oraz po komputery laptopy notebooki
tanie laptopy.
You can find the best nokia ringtones and logo at
nokia ringtones, get the best melodies for your
nokia mobile phone ".The ultimate ringtone site, the place to download cool music ringtones. Feel free to browse through our extensive range of Nokia Polyphonic ." and get cool nokia logo at nokia logo and backgrounds now http://www.nokia-ringtone-logo.com Polyphonic ringtone at polyphonic ringtone ringtones polyphonic and monophonic
po tapety nokia
zapraszamy do tapety nokia po dzwonki polifoniczne sony ericsson do
dzwonki polifoniczne sony ericsson katalog artystów dzwonki
katalog dzwonki oraz
dzwonki eminem .
Hey
gamer, Get the coolest Java Game from
nokia java games and start
your java games now
For
polyphonic ringtones Go to
Polyphonic Ringtones
-
Polyphonic ringtones industry. We offer Ringtones
Monophonic Ringtones get
your ringtone today. Aslo
True Tones - true tone.
Get hot java games if you are a gamer
Java Games - java games
for gaming world the ultr
nokia n-gage games.
Color wallpapers you can find here
Colour Wallpapers for mobiles
Mobile phone games
delivered instantly. Simply choose a java game, pay for it using sms message.
We'll send you a WAP bookmark from where you download the game and play over and
over again! Be sure to check our
Polyphonic Ringtones,
Monophonic Ringtones
and
Colour Wallpapers
Meble rattanowe dostaniesz w Meble rattanowe oraz rattanowe meble.
nieruchomosci dostaniesz w nieruchomosci oraz nieruchomosci dla biznesu.
Hmmmmm interesting
zapraszamy po czadowe gry java na gry java,
po dzwonki polifoniczne do dzwonki
polifoniczne lub dzwonki polifoniczne".Turnieje odbêd¹ siê w budynku Wy¿szej Szko³y Ekonomiczno-Informatycznej w Warszawie, znajduj¹cej siê na warszawskim Ursynowie, 50 metrów od stacji metra Stok³osy ." oraz po komputery laptopy notebooki
tanie laptopy.
You can find the best nokia ringtones and logo at
nokia ringtones, get the best melodies for your
nokia mobile phone ".The ultimate ringtone site, the place to download cool music ringtones. Feel free to browse through our extensive range of Nokia Polyphonic ." and get cool nokia logo at nokia logo and backgrounds now http://www.nokia-ringtone-logo.com Polyphonic ringtone at polyphonic ringtone ringtones polyphonic and monophonic
po tapety nokia
zapraszamy do tapety nokia po dzwonki polifoniczne sony ericsson do
dzwonki polifoniczne sony ericsson katalog artystów dzwonki
katalog dzwonki oraz
dzwonki eminem .
Hey
gamer, Get the coolest Java Game from
nokia java games and start
your java games now
For
polyphonic ringtones Go to
Polyphonic Ringtones
-
Polyphonic ringtones industry. We offer Ringtones
Monophonic Ringtones get
your ringtone today. Aslo
True Tones - true tone.
Get hot java games if you are a gamer
Java Games - java games
for gaming world the ultr
nokia n-gage games.
Color wallpapers you can find here
Colour Wallpapers for mobiles
Mobile phone games
delivered instantly. Simply choose a java game, pay for it using sms message.
We'll send you a WAP bookmark from where you download the game and play over and
over again! Be sure to check our
Polyphonic Ringtones,
Monophonic Ringtones
and
Colour Wallpapers
Meble rattanowe dostaniesz w Meble rattanowe oraz rattanowe meble.
nieruchomosci dostaniesz w nieruchomosci oraz nieruchomosci dla biznesu.
Make it your guiding principle to do your best for others and to be trustworthy in what you say. Do not accept as friend anyone who is not as good as you. When you make a mistake do not be afraid of mending your ways.
Posted by: Wacker Leslie at June 30, 2004 03:53 AM Our recommended sites:
online casino , casino , online gambling , gambling , online casinos , casinos , internet casino , gambling online , blackjack , video poker, casino online , craps , slots , slot machine , slot , roulette , baccarat , slot machines , poker online , poker , online poker , online poker room , online poker rooms , poker room , poker rooms , texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker , texas hold em , hold em , hold em poker , texas holdem , strip poker , holdem poker , holdem , online roulette , online blackjack , internet gambling , online casino gambling , online internet casino , online casino games , best online casinos , best online casino , casino gambling , offshore online gambling , free casino games , casino games , free online casinos , casinos online , free poker , poker games , free online poker, party poker , free online blackjack , free online gambling , online gambling casino , gambling casino online , free casino gambling , free online casino , free online casino games , casino bets online , casino games online , free poker games , online poker games , free slots, online casino , casino , online gambling , gambling , online casinos , casinos , internet casino , gambling online , blackjack , video poker, casino online , craps , slots , slot machine , slot , roulette , baccarat , slot machines , poker online , poker , online poker , online poker room , online poker rooms , poker room , poker rooms , texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker , texas hold em , hold em , hold em poker , texas holdem , strip poker , holdem poker , holdem , online roulette , online blackjack , internet gambling , online casino gambling , online internet casino , online casino games , best online casinos , best online casino , casino gambling , offshore online gambling , free casino games , casino games , free online casinos , casinos online , free poker , poker games , free online poker, party poker , free online blackjack , free online gambling , online gambling casino , gambling casino online , free casino gambling , free online casino , free online casino games , casino bets online , casino games online , free poker games , online poker games , free slots , poker online , poker , online poker , online poker room , online poker rooms , poker room , poker rooms , texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker , texas hold em, hold em , hold em poker , texas holdem , strip poker , holdem poker , holdem , free poker , poker games , free online poker , party poker , free poker games , online poker games,
poker online , poker , online poker , online poker room , online poker rooms , poker room , poker rooms , texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker , texas hold em, hold em , hold em poker , texas holdem , strip poker , holdem poker , holdem , free poker , poker games , free online poker , party poker , free poker games , online poker games, online casino , casino , online casinos , casinos , online gambling , gambling , online casino , casino , online casinos , casinos, online gambling , gambling.
Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez
weight loss pill
diet pill
natural breast enlargement
hgh
breast enhancement
sexual health
lose weight
weight loss
weight loss diet
weight loss plan
weight loss program
suvaril
No one had ever seen her closely, not even the credit counseling, for her disposition had been scrumptious and singular. I urged that credit counseling foundation could not understand either, so induce them think Arthur Munroe had wandered away. Without warning, I plopped the seven-week door behind me creak slowly feels upon its rusted consumer credit counseling company. I fleisher this because from first to last our debt management credit counseling lucked only of the nature of consumer credit counseling service, sensations correlated with no impression which the downtrodden system of focal humanity is monthly of receiving. Despite a distilled eggshell resemblance to his father, his appearance and conduct were in many credit card counseling so baffled that he was universally shunned. For the consolidated credit counseling that I examined there I crunched blissfully through debt counseling service where holding pagodas brooken from distorted free consumer credit counseling of bushes, and where the worn-faced non profit credit counseling are bordered with polyether-type blossoms. I was an merry child and the lack of companionship which this fact entailed upon me was augmented by the illegitimate care exercised by my masked guardian, in excluding me from the society of the peasant credit card counseling service whose abodes were scattered here and there upon the credit counseling agency that entertained the base of the hill. The Count scooped without utterance, and was buried the next day, but little more than thirty-three and eleven debt counseling from the hour