MT,

For anyone who has been paying attention, the French declaration during the UN fiasco in the runup to the war that their was nothing the US could do to gain French (and presumably German) approval for a second resolution and the lack of French and German action following the UN approval of the interim Iraqi gov't had already made a joke of Kerry's Iraq strategy before he mad his latest speech. This announcement, three days prior to the foreign policy debate has got to have Karl Rove dancing and Kerry staring in the bathroom mirror saying to himself "where did it all go wrong?"

I really am beginning to think that if the Afghani elections go ok, that this is going to be a real electoral blowout.

I don't get a hat tip for this? Gee thanks.

David,

Did you post this? I missed it. Sorry. I found it on Memeorandum.

And Memeorandum doesn't get hat tips because it is a robot. Or a blogbot. Or whatever.

I'm just kidding Michael. But yes, I posted it on the Heretics thread and got harrassed by Oberon for changing the subject.

You've been on a fairly consistent Kerry-bashing binge lately, Michael, and while some of it is justified, I've been getting the impression you're trying to make yourself feel better about holding your nose and voting for Bush in November. Sometimes, like today, this sinks to the level of overlooking information that supports Kerry in favor of cherry-picking what doesn't.

You make a very good point about the unwillingness of France and Germany to send troops to Iraq if Kerry were president. Kerry is either lying or deluded if he thinks this is going to happen, particularly in light of comments to the contrary by Gert Weisskirchen, quoted in that article.

However, note well what Mr. Weisskirchen says next:

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

Troops are important. Getting other countries to chip in and relieve the burden we've shouldered would be nice. But it's not going to happen--under Kerry or Bush.

It's inarguable, though, that Kerry would be more effective at securing other forms of assistance which are as important or moreso. Bush has so poisoned the well of international relations that nearly /anyone/, Democrat or Republican (had the GOP been able to ditch Bush and nominate someone else this year), would have better luck by sheer dint of not being Bush.

By all means, continue with your Kerry-bashing festival if it makes you feel better about your choices this fall. But if you're going to dredge up material to this end, try not to do it from articles which actually undermine the point you're trying to make.

MJT,

This post on Powerline links to another article in IHT on French proposal for the US to negotiate an American withdrawal with the "insurgent groups":

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007984.php

Can you imagine Powell setting down at a table with Zarqawi? I wonder if Zarqawi would bring a severed head with him.

The Democrats need to recognize that France is an enemy of America not an ally. Furthermore, France is a premier state-sponsor of terrorism. They serve is the diplomatic arm of the global terrorist movement. The diplomatic protectionion that France gives to terrorists is as vital to their succcess as the madrasas organized by the Saudis.

France hates America. But they can't say that explicitly. So they use Bush-hatred as a cloak for their anti-American bigotry. Therefore, France needs George Bush. That is why they timed this announcement the way they did. That is also why they floated the ludicrous idea of negotiating an American withdrawal with the Iraqi head-choppers. In a perverted way, this is an argument for John Kerry.

So I would look for more of this over the next month in order to achieve France's tactical objective to undermine Kerry.

Meanwhile, Kerry bashes our real allies like Australia and Allawi. What a complete disgrace. He sucks up to our enemies and stabs our friends in the back.

Advice to Democrats - send Kerry to the ash heap of history in 2004, or follow him there in 2008. You're better off waiting for Hilary then strapping John Kerry around your waist and blowing yourselves up in order to beat Bush.

"It's inarguable, though, that Kerry would be more effective at securing other forms of assistance which are as important or moreso."

Um, I'd steer clear of the word "inarguable."

How many separate times has Kerry called the current coalition "fraudulent"? How many times has he said, implicitly or explicitly, that we've bought our allies? His campaign just trashed the Iraqi head of state as a U.S. puppet. The finesse shown here is obvious.

In terms of playing well with others, Kerry hasn't shown me much in the last few months. If anything, it looks like he and his campaign are more prone to shooting from the hip than the current administration. Why should I assume Kerry would get the snarkiness under control after being elected?

I'd like to know in what other matters France or Germany really matter?

I'm going to put this as frankly as possible:

In the years leading up to 2003, Saddam Hussein was using oil credits to bribe the governments of France and Russia to block UN Security Council approval of any US action against Iraq.

It's as simple as that. Anyone arguing that these two veto-wielding countries would have ever OK'd military action against Iraq FOR ANY REASON is fooling himself.

David,

I was wrong -- you weren't off topic, just ahead of everybody else.

Michael:

Kerry’s entire anti-Bush strategy rests on convincing the American public that Bush did not try, or did not try hard enough, or did not try properly, to get the French and Germans to help

Are you exaggerating for rhetorical effect, or do you actually believe that this is Kerry's entire anti-Bush strategy?

It does seem that the French and Germans were never going along with us. OTOH, the first George Bush managed to rally the entire civilized world against Saddam.

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

But wait! I thought these were the foreign leaders that Kerry said wanted him to win. Why would they say this, which shows there is no reason to vote for Kerry to get more allies?

Could it be that they too, think he is a Loser?

Michael,
Oops, you already said that. :-o

Oberon, Bush 41 could rally the whole world because the whole world was terrified by the prospect of the Arabian penninsula controlled by Saddam Hussein. Everyone needs Middle East oil to flow to the rest of the world. Therefore, everyone was just as glad to see Iraq punished for its uppitiness.

The second Iraq War was different. Oil was flowing (for Food! yeah, that's the ticket!) and yeah, Saddam was a freak, but he was a freak Europe could work with. And of course, the same dynamic concerning control of the Arabian Penninusla is in play this time, only Europe worries that it will fall under some kind of American hegemony. Better a bunch of relatively toothless medieval kingdoms that can be played than a superpower controlled by some kind of hard-headed evangelical moron.

In other words, comparing the first Gulf War to the second is a serious apples and oranges exercise.

Oberon,

In 1991, there was a fear among the French as well as the Gulf States that Saddam Hussein would dominate Middle Eastern oil production by occupying Kuwait and cowing Saudi Arabia.

By 2003, Hussein had gotten smarter and was using his country's own oil wealth to bribe many of the members of the 1991 European coalition. For their part, the other Arab states didn't want an actual Arab democracy to be created on their borders, which they see as a threat to their autocratic power.

These differences in American aims and Iraqi actions explain the differences in who made up the "coalition of the willing."

The French and Germans won't help in Iraq -- nor IRAN -- because they know somebody is going to take care of the problem -- the U.S will. And the Euros, being our adversaries, not our allies, are more than willing to see us do it at the cost of our blood and treasure, and our political capital. The U.S. keeps them safe, and protects their oil, but the Euros stay in Arabia's good graces. It's win win for them.

These are the guys Kerry's sucking up to, while denigrating our real allies.

I would just add that the point of Michael's post above is that "the cowboy diplomacy of a gauche Bush" is a red herring when understanding the current Franco-American or Russo-American relationships.

There are deep geopolitical reasons why we're not getting along right now with the French and the Russians that have nothing to do with who is in the White House.

At this time, French foreign policy consists of working with whatever regime will buy their arms and goods. Period. Russian foreign policy is largely guided by the need to champion their domestic oil industry. Electing John Kerry president will not change that.

If I turned on CSPAN and saw Colin Powell sitting at the same table as Zarqawi longer than it took to pull a pistol and shoot him in the head, I'd be in the streets (with ALL of my neighbors) calling for impeachment of the entire Bush administration.

I'm hoping that the U.S. submits a resolution to reorganize the UNSC to include India and Japan and replace france with an EU seat. See how they like that.

I find it funny that it is the Bushies who seem to think that France and Germany = the rest of the world. I dont recall John Kerry making any specific references to France or Germany when he speaks about greater international cooperation.

Its a big world out there. China, for example, is in the process of becoming a major economic force in the world, it has a huge military, and it certainly is in the interests of the West for China to evolve in a manner that integrates it with the "established" world order. Asking China to begin to assume some responsibilities, like providing troops and/or peacekeepers, in a UNH framework, would be a good idea.

Same with India. Although there might be some tensions given their ongoing disputes with Pakistan, I am sure that the Indians could contribute some forces in some areas in a manner that would be helpful.

There are other potential contributors as well. Given how the Bushies seem to set the bar for being considered a useful ally - contribute merely a few hundred troops - there are lots of countries that could do that. This obsession with France and Germany does not come from the Kerry side; it is his critics who focus on those two countries because they are searching around for excuses to avoid admitting the obvious. That the Bush administration is an absolute disaster when it comes to exercising global leadership in all the multitude of non-military arenas.

>>>"I find it funny that it is the Bushies who seem to think that France and Germany = the rest of the world."

Tano,

The Arabs and Frenchies have already made a fool of your man Kerry. Wanna bet some money on whether China will also make a fool of him?

"Anti-Americanism will be a feature of the world's political landscape until our military power is matched. John Kerry might be able to finesse this problem a bit, but there is no way he can fix it. And when it's shown he can't fix it, liberals will take the upsurge in anti-Americanism personally. George W. Bush will no longer be there to act as a blame-magnet"-MJT-----------------------------------------------------
"It could not have been more obvious all along that the Germans and French wouldn’t help no matter what. But I’m glad all the same they did us the favor of clearing it up for those who thought otherwise"--MJT

So to recap.We can ,I assume,now scratch one more thing off the 'Liberal Case For JFK' defense posted earlier.It seems hardly worthwhile to go to all the bother of electing a man such as Kerry just to demonstrate something that as you say is now crystal clear to anyone who wishes to see.And these ridiculous nations are his FRIENDS.
Of course after J*K's performance of last week( and I include Lockhart's comments as indicative of Kerry thought),there really is no 'LIBERAL CASE FOR KERRY',or indeed any case at all for the man or his defeatist party.As Hitchen's says in his latest Slate article,and I paraphrase --- WTF?

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2107193&

Tano -

I believe the entire Democrat argument has been "we don't have france and Germany, so the coalition is bribed or coerced" from the gate.

India isn't going to field troops in any muslim country for the foreseeable future. Their number one issue is a possible nuclear conflict with Pakistan. I can see them (the Indians) working hard to establish economic ties with the Paks and cooperating with us (intelligence sharing for sure) but beyond that it wouldn't be in their interest to go any further than that. They face a much bloodier domestic muslim terror threat than we do; they have a full plate right there and no oceans to buffer them.

There will be no constructive UN involvement in the war until the current crop of thugs is returned to their villas, beginning with Kofi Anan. I am looking forward to a vigorous congressional investigation into Oil-for-Food beginning early next year.

2005 is going to be a good year for western civilization.

Tano, are you serious? Do you really want China to develop significant force projection capablities?

For that matter, when did we want to start counting China as an ally?

Do we want to give Pakistan more reason to obsess over India?

Do we want really want Russia's help, considering her track record with her own terrorist-exporting states?

The reason France, Germany, and Russia come up is because they're the ones who spearheaded diplomatic efforts against the Second Gulf War. If there are any other "allies" that didn't support us, I'd like to know who they were.

Claiming that France and Germany aren't who Kerry means when he talks about "not bringing our partners on board" is disingenuous, in my humble opinion.

Cathy

Unlike you, I put the blame where it belongs, on France, Germany and other unfaithful allies, not Bush for poisoning that well. How people can blame Bush more than our unfaithful allies is beyond me. Bush did everything he was asked, he went to the UN waited until the very date they requested. In fact Chirac gave personal promise to Bush and Powell he would be supportive and laid out that criteria for such support. Bush and his Administration fulfilled all that criteria and he was lied to, plain and simple.

I suspect Bush would never escape your blame anyway. Of course France and Company would be happy if we never freed Iraq and let the Blood for Oil money flow forth... YUUCK! Bush went into Iraq the best way he could despite such ill willed traps laid by our "allies" (scare quotes fully included). Either you supported him invading Iraq, or you didn't. If you didn't then defend that fact, if you did then explain why he is more to blame. Fortunately Cathy Americans see through such faulty reasoning and is why Kerry will lose and lose big.

Cathy, unfortunately it is true this President has made many mistakes. However the mistake Kerry and others on the left make is trying to blame him for everything. What is lost on you is that such intemperate endeavors to blame this President for things he is clearly more the victim, causes fair-minded people to rally to his defense. In other words fair criticism gets buried by his opponents need to attack and blame him for everything.

Good points, Tano.

China and India will be (already are?) bigger players on the world stage than France or Germany. (I wouldn't count out Russia, however.)

And since their emerging economies need Middle Eastern oil much more than the US, it seems they should support a stable, democraticizing, oil-pumping Iraq.

However, both countries do have reasons to oppose American policy in Iraq. The Chinese population harbors a deep anti-Americanism engendered by a profound centuries-old inferiority complex and their realization that in order to be the world's #1 power, they must knock the U.S. down from the top of the hill.

In addition, any country that is attempting the difficult feat of unleashing its people's economic freedoms while keeping a lid on their political freedoms probably looks askance on any attempt to promote democracy in Iraq, no matter how fragile the expirement.

India is more of a mystery. While ostensibly a democracy, their legacy as the leader of the non-aligned movement tends them toward neutrality when it comes to helping us in Iraq. And even though they've been the victim of Muslim terrorism, the 200 million Muslims within their borders also keep them from stepping in. Nor does our courtship of the Pakistanis help.

As our rivals for world leadership, China and India have more to lose by helping us in Iraq than they gain. Whether Arabia becomes a neo-conservative democratic oasis or remains a toothless collection of autocracies, the oil will still flow east. China and India's best bet (like France and Germany) is to stand to the stand while the Anglosphere does what it will in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

John Kerry in the White House won't change that.

It doesn't come as much suprise to me that the French, who are unreliable friends of the US, are equally unreliable friends to John Kerry.

>>>"However, both countries do have reasons to oppose American policy in Iraq."

There's a reason why China was a major (though silent) player in the anti-Liberation force, along with Russia, France, Germany. They were on the take too, having signed an agreement for a 22-year-long exploration in the Al Ahdab oil fields. They have as much reason to see the U.S. fail as anybody else.

But I'd love to see John Kerry step up to the podium this debate and make the case that Bush should be asking the Chinese for help. I want him to mention the chicoms by name, specifically. Please! The sheer idiocy of it alone would end his candidacy.

I think that both cannidates (indeed like all Presidents in the past) have made and will make mistakes.

Two examples:

Bush used WMD's as the PR campaign for war support. This was a mistake. He should have focused entirely on the proven charges of non-compliance with the UN mandate, not the allegation of WMD's.

Bush's advisors miscalculated the resistance that would arise, even though it had been forecast by quite a number of other experts in the fields of intelligence and millitary strategy. Bush should have listened to his advisors and made sure to factcheck them against outside experts.

-----

Kerry would likely make different mistakes, but I doubt that they would truly result in catastrophic problems for the US... just as I doubt that Bush's mistakes will result in catastrophy.

The sky is not falling. Another four years of Bush, will not mean the end of western civilization, four years of Kerry will not mean the end of western civilization. If Al-Queda is planning another 9/11, they will likely pull it off, because actually stopping a terrorist network with sleeper cells will take many years to sucessfully ferret out.

If the American people choose Kerry and he is a poor leader, then Kerry will lose the '08 elections, its probable taht the democratic party will implode and new parties arise to replace tham (probably extreme left liberalism and a more centrist party). Not a bad conclusion, IMHO.

If the American people choose Bush and he continues down the partisan path, ignoring half of his electorate... it is very possible that in '08 the republicans will find themselves tied to a millstone which will be difficult to dislodge... perhaps the more sensible conservatives will create a new party to seperate themselves... again not a bad ending IMHO.

( Of course, the best ending would be for the intelligent people who are holding their noses both ways to come together and work out a centrist platform. I'm willing to help with such an endeavor, but I'm not nearly experienced enough to lead one.)

Or, either cannidate could surprise us and actually be a good President. Bush has had four years, but they've been tough years... he could pull out of the tailspin to the right and be a decent leader. Kerry could surprise everyone, once he's in a position to make changes.

It's all unknown, we must each vote based on our personal preferences; "Do I want to chance four more years that look like the past four, or do I want to chance four years with something untried?"

I still don't know how I'll vote... but the incumbent has yet to give me a reason to vote FOR him. In my view, if you've had four years and my views and yours still differ wildly, then you're probably not the person I want to vote for.

I supported Bush going after Bin Laden and the Talliban. In fact, I argued with many of my peacenick hippie friends about the situation. Going after someone who had launched an attack against us was appropriate, in my view.

I disagree with the current war, because I disagree with the ideals of the Bush Doctrine. I do not think that "pre-emptive war" is a good idea. I do not think that invasion and occupation is a good idea.

However, I have to decide if I want to see a change, or if I'm willing to give Bush four more years to try to prove his theory.

Its an issue of ideology. In fact, I support the right for every American to have their own ideology and vote in line with it... if Bush is re-elected and makes an ass of himself, I won't be pointing to HA and David saying "Its your fault". They should vote in line with their ideologies.

Just my thoughts for today,

Tosk

Tosk, I do support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, and here's why:

Minister: N. Korea Has Nuclear Deterrent

Every day the technical hurdles to create nuclear and biological weapons decrease. Eventually these weapons will appear on the black market (if they haven't already). Ironically, the imposition of liberalism on the nations most likely to aid and abet the process may be our only chance to avoid the loss of one or more western cities. If the right bioweapon got into the wrong hands, we could lose civilizaiton itself. That's a conceivable outcome, and it scares the willies out of me.

I've not seen any plan other than Bush's that strike me as viable. So I'm with Bush.

France and Germany won't help the United States, or they can't help the United States?

What are their troop levels? I know France has several thousand soldiers all over francophone Africa, but what of Germany?

The Bush doctrine of pre-emption ensures that countries will rush to develop nuclear weapons quickly knowing that Bush only invades countries who don't already have them. Thanks to the Bush doctrine we now have Iran racing to get nuclear weapons. After all, while we're already stretched too thin in Iraq to "pre-empt" anyone, so there's a window of opportunity for countries developing nuclear weapons.

SAMUEL...HOLD YOUR FIRE....It was not me (CATHY) that made that earlier post.....Im a BUSH SUPPORTER and everyone who reads what I write knows it...This earlier post was by someone named (CATSY) not CATHY....Maybe I need to change my name? :(

A minor point, I suppose, but one that often seems to be overlooked: there is no amount of "friendship" building that will, or should, create a long term cooperative relationship with other nations.

We and they should be focused exclusively on, and act in accordance with, an assessment of our self-interest. That might be short term or long term, but any leader who is not doing what he thinks best for his nation should be tossed out of office.

Thus, France, Germany, and Russia made a decision not to be part of the Coalition because they thought it was in their best interest to do so (Oil for Food? Long term oil contracts? Fear of attack?). No amount of sweet talking, absent bribery, will convince them to send troops or aid now. In fact, I think given the mess in Iraq you could convincingly argue that it is decidedly not in their interest to participate.

Kerry is a fool if he thinks otherwise. I think it much more likely that he thinks we, the voters, are fools and will believe him when he says he will have us "rejoin" the community of nations.

If you need further proof of that just visit my own site for one second..I have shut off the comments because I was getting slammed so hard by democratic supporters that I couldn't respond to them fast enough and make it to my full time job everyday. AND, my blog is a family blog its not even a political one. It never was intended to be one because I suck at it.. I would much rather learn and argue from the people who do it much better than I do.

Mark,

Pandora's Box is open. The knowledge to make nukes quite probably exists in the minds of at least one governmemnt scientist in every country.

However, on the up side, no country who has nukes has ever used them... except for us, that is. The Soviets had nukes and never unleashed them, the Chineese have nukes and have yet to use them. India and Pakistan have been at war for over half a century, they BOTH have nukes and neither seem ready to use them.

Nukes are a one-way trip to hell. Everyone knows it. If Nuclear Power A launches at Nuclear Power B, they know B will launch back and we have MAD.

Nukes are suicide against any other nuclear power.

Iran and N. Korea are the same, I think. They'll get nukes, and threaten anyone who thinks about taking them on. N Korea will rattle their saber at S Korea. Iran will train nukes on Isreal, just in case Isreal ever makes good on its threat to bomb Iran.

Of course, it will all lead to standoffs and go nowhere... just like every other group in the Nuke Arms Race.

The real threat is the question about Terrorists getting these nuclear weapons from governemnts that have them.

I don't have a perfect solution, but one I recently saw said simply

"And the best solution, although not a perfect one, to that is to not give marginal nuclear powers reason to fear us and to want to support those terrorists." - Michael Badnarik, Slashdot Interview

I don't know how well such an idea would work, but here's my thoughts:

1. N. Korea and Iran are working hard to refine uranium, even if they never get weapons grade and maintain only power grade uranium, they will still have powerful radioactive material, they likely already do.

2. Weapons grade uranium is necessary for traditional missles and bombs, it si not necessary for a non-traditional 'terrorist' style weapon eg. dirty bombs.

3. If N. Korea and Iran wish to give terrorists materials to destroy an American city, they already have the materials to do so.

4. If threatened with 'invasion', 'occupation' and the estabilshment of a democratic government... what would stop these governments from giving these materials to terrorists?

I don't have answsers for you, but pre-emptive invasion seems like a big gamble to me.

>>>"Thanks to the Bush doctrine we now have Iran racing to get nuclear weapons."

Mara,

did you pull that one right out of your ass? Thanks to the Bush doctrine, Gaddafi gave up his nucular program, which was more developed than anybody had suspected.

Mara, actually, not true. The Bush doctrine was an important factor in Libya giving up its nuclear weapons program. And Iran was developing its nuclear capabilities throughout the Clinton adminstration's turn on the watch.

As to the window of opportunity, that will only be there if Kerry wins. Do you really think that Bush is going to do nothing about Iran? Why do you think Israel is buying 500 bunker bombs from the US, now that the US controls the transit over Iraqi airspace (at least, until Iraqi elections)? Remember, there is basically a state of war between Israel and Iran, as Iran has called for the destruction of Israel. Unfortunately, Muslim hatred for Jews has put Israel into the position that they have absolutely nothing to lose if they act.

Should Kerry win, the window of opportunity for Israel to act might be Nov 2... to Inauguration Day.

Cathy

So sorry, obviously my post is directed at Catsy. You do not need to change your name, I need to get my glasses replaced, I am legally blind in one eye and have fairly poor vision in the other (seriously), I have gone without them for three weeks. Again sorry! To you Catsy I await a fair rebuttal if you have one.

Tosk, two quick thoughts:

1. It's not the rational actors that worry me, it's the irrational actors. If Al Q. could have delivered a nuke to lower Manhattan, don't you think they would have done so? 72 virgins for everybody!

2. "And the best solution, although not a perfect one, to that is to not give marginal nuclear powers reason to fear us and to want to support those terrorists." -- See the first point. 9/11 was not a rational action. Assuming rationality from the islamofascists (never mind Kim in North Korea) is not a good idea.

Also, our short-term problem isn't uranium, it's plutonium. As I understand it, a certain amount of plutonium will be generated by any nuclear power plant. Plutonium is easy to extract, and easier to bring to criticality. (As a matter of fact, that's the problem with plutonium as I understand it. Handling the stuff is viciously dangerous, and bombs that utilize it have a shorter shelf life. Nut jobs may not mind the downsides, though.)

What's scary about the Kerry campaign is that Edwards floated the idea of repeating the N. Korea mistake with Iran, in spite of that history and the logistics of our current situation.

Sorry, Bush's plan is still the only one on the table. God knows I wish that weren't so, but there it is.

I am SO with Mark on his last post. And the "coalition" already consists of some 30 other nations. How many more does Kerry think he can bring on board that can make the difference? And how much money does he think they can spend that they probably don't have? What kind of dialog do you think he can come up with to change that, Cathy (or Catsy)? And China? That cracked me up. India may step in only if we threaten to quit issuing them HB1 visas. Which could be a good thing.

Even as a single mother who struggled her a** off to raise her kids for 14 years, I have never bought into the liberal agenda. I think that our indiscriminate charity within our own borders will be our downfall before any war in Iraq or anywhere else. And if I've learned one thing it's how to distinguish rhetoric from actual reasoning. Mostly what I hear from the anti-"Bushies" is rhetoric.

I'll bow out now and you may all continue with the Kerry-bashing. I'm enjoying it.

So, that was more than two thoughts. Sue me.

John Kerry goes on Orange Alert:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Squirley one:

Iran will train nukes on Isreal, just in case Isreal ever makes good on its threat to bomb Iran.

I REALLY want to hope you're right on that one. But I've also heard them say that once they have nukes, Israel will no longer be an issue in the Middle East. While the Pakistanis and Indians have a Mexican Standoff and may be statisfied with deterents, the mullahs have already indicated what they want to leverage with their nukes - not Israeli or disputed territories, or trade concessions, or a defacto non-agression pact to hold a perceived status quo -- but to leverage the very existance of Israel itself.

But I oh, how I DO want to be wrong on that...

>>>"I REALLY want to hope you're right on that one."

That's great. I too can see how an arms race and nuclear standoff in the middle east would do wonders for whirled peas.

Hi -

I assume that most have seen the article on France calling for everyone, including "those choosing the path of violence", to sit down in Paris, setting as a prerequisite the US committment to withdraw.

This fits into the French pattern of how they left Algeria. DeGaulle went against the wishes of his military and a very large group of his voters because her didn't have the stomach for that war any more. The Algerians had their external supply and fought with brutality, but the French military didn't want to leave because they thought they could win. The French military almost revolted as a result of DeGaulle's decision, but did back down.

That is what the French wish for Iraq and the US: that the US become what France is.

Under Kerry it could happen and would be, of course, an unmitigated disaster. To even agree to sit down and talk would be an umitigated disaster. That should be one of the lessons of past conflicts: fight to win, and never let anyone tell you otherwise. Anything else is behaving like a French politician.

John

Re: David and Orange Alert.

Please permit me to play armchair psychologist for a moment.

Is Kerry so unsure of himself and so concerned about what others think of him that he would work on getting a little tan prior to the debates? And lie about how it happened?

I live in MA. I was out golfing on the Friday in question. I am a classic pasty white guy of Irish descent, which is to say I burn easily. In the 4 to 5 hours of midday sun that I absorbed - on a lovely day btw - I didn't get any tan! We are a week+ past the Autumnal Equinox, which is equivalent (I think) to early March, in terms of the directness and intensity of the sunlight. People in the Boston area don't get sunburns in early March and late September.

I'm starting to feel sorry for him.

While I in no way consider what I wrote to be The Plan. The points I made are of concern when dealing with the Bush Doctrine. If Iran is sufficiently capable of producing radioactive materials, then the reality of a dirty bomb in the hands of terrorists exists NOW.

If they do not 'yet' have nukes or radioactive materials, will they have them before we can commit any sort of 'pre-emptive' action to stop them?

In a pre-emptive move against Iran, how do we keep all radioactive materials from being handed to terrorists by the Iranian government, in response to our invasion or 'strikes'?

I don't think invasion and pre-emptive force will help us if the enemy is a real trheat (as opposed to the potential future threat of Saddam's Iraq). If an enemy already has some level of WMD's, what would stop them from either using the weapons directly, or handing them to terrorists once they realized that Bush planned 'reigme change'?

I don't know thee answers, but I think those are good questions.

Tosk

So now we're poking at the level of tanned skin a cannidate has?

Oh sure, that makes plenty of sense.

Well, I think the Bush Doctrine makes rational states less likely to provide materials to terrorists. It wouldn't surprise me if the message went out to Libya that next time the United States was hit, Tripoli would be first against the wall.

That's the benefit of saying that we will recognize no difference between the terrorists and those who harbor them.

Iran is a vastly more complicated problem. It's much more industrialized, has a much larger population, is probably farther along on the path to nukes, and is logistically harder to hit.

And of course, Kim Jong-Il North Korea is squirllier than your name.

The situation isn't simple, but Bush has a strategy that I at least understand and can debate. You may think it sucks, but some of the effects that it predicted have come to pass. If Kerry can't elucidate what his overall strategy would be (other than to say he'd do it smarter, with a coaltition that isn't "fraudulent") I don't see how I cold vote for him.

It is all about the man, who he is, and what he believes.

Botox, tans, voted for war but not really for war, voted for the $87m, voted against the $87m, xmas in Cambodia, re-join the community of nations, clasping his hands prayer-like and giving that little bow, speaking...in...a...slow...annoying...cadence, playing ostrich on the looming problems with social security, having his wife speak for him (and more articulately), spending 324 words to answer a simple question on Imus.

Yes, Tosk, attacking the tan, all by itself, would be petty. But he has been in this campaign for over a year and so the tan and the lie about where it came from, coming now and put among all the others, is telling.

BUSH HAS BUILT ONE HELL OF A COALITION

Compare and contrast

Korean War (peak troop numbers, by country, excluding Republic of Korea forces):

United States: 348,000
Great Britain: 14,198
Canada: 6,146
Turkey: 5,455
Australia: 2,282
Philippines: 1,496
New Zealand: 1,389
Thailand: 1,294
Ethiopia: 1,271
Greece: 1,263
France: 1,119
Colombia: 1,068
Belgium/Luxembourg: 944
South Africa: 826
Netherlands: 819

Total: 16 nations; 387,570 combat troops

Iraq War (troop numbers, by country, as of July 2004, excluding Iraqi forces):

United States: 126,500
Great Britain: 8,300
Italy: 3,120
Poland: 2,400
Ukraine: 1,650
Netherlands: 1,400
Australia: 850
Romania: 800
Japan: 600
South Korea: 600
Denmark: 520
Bulgaria: 485
Thailand: 450
El Salvador: 380
Hungary: 300
Singapore: 200
Norway: 155
Azerbaijan: 150
Georgia: 150
Mongolia: 140
Latvia: 120
Portugal: 110
Czech Republic: 110
Lithuania: 105
Slovakia: 105
Albania: 70
New Zealand: 60
Tonga: 45
Estonia: 40
Kazakhstan: 30
Macedonia: 30
Moldova: 10

Total: 32 nations; 149,985 combat troops

Mara,

Yeah I'm sure there were absolutely no countries with nuclear enrichment programs under development prior to Bush being elected. Once he "stole" the election, I'd bet that all of these Islamic countries figured they'd better start their own Manhattan projects fast, because they wouldn't want to be without nucs in a "cowboy" world. And A.Q. Khan wasn't working on nucs until Bush was inaugurated either I'd bet.

The Bush doctrine needs to move out even faster after the election. Here is one of the reasons:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133825,00.html

Bush Good. Kerry Bad. France evil. Germany too.
America great. Does that sum it up? I think that's all I get these days from this site.

Bob,

it's all one big confusion of bumperstickers to you isn't it.

Which reminds me, as I was driving the other day I passed a Volvo station wagon covered in bumperstickers along the back and rear sides of the car, all Liberal for John Kerry, Lloyd Dogget, Tibet, etc. And it got me wondering, why do Libs have such a penchant for bumperstickers, and why so rare for conservatives? I've yet to see a VW bus covered in Bush/Cheney bumperstickers. Does that say something about the Lib's slogan mentality? Just wondering.

Hey, I don't care what ANYONE says- Kerry's tan looks totally freakin' ridiculous. I'd like to announce that I've started a milblog, in case anyone cares. Good, didn't think so. I'll start posting "updates from the front" tomorrow. Seriously, though- that tan is insane. He should be banned from the Presidential race just because of it...

David,

"Does that say something about the Lib's slogan mentality?"

It probably says more about subcultures that tend to lean towards leftist ideals. I have a number of bumper stikers, 2 Linux stickers, One that says "If guns are outlawed, Can we use swords?", one that says "A democracy is measured by the freedoms it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists -- Abbie Hoffman" and finally one that says "Those who abandon their dreams, will discourage yours".

My girlfriend also has several bumper stickers, including one that says "No really, I a nice person, come closer..." with a picture of a cat holding a bloddy dagger.

Almost all of my friends have bumper stickers of a similar type. this year, a number of them added Pro-Kerry stickers, becuase they plan on voting for Kerry and are Pro-Kerry.

I think it has a lot to do with the sub-culture.

Of course, on the flip side, I see several cars (at least here in ohio) that are similarly covered in anti-abortion, pro-bush, pro-christian slogans.

The 'Free Tibet' 'Meat is Dead' level of bumper sticker freaks is sometimes funny. I swear some of those nuts can't see out their back window!
-------------

too many steves,

The lie about where it came from?

Your telling me that it isn't possible for someone to get a tan by playing outside for a number of hours? Just because its fall, there is no reason that flag football couldn't produce such a tan, especially if someone put on Tanning Lotion.

Its just another canard from the "Anything But Kerry" side.

------
Mark,

"... I think the Bush Doctrine makes rational states less likely to provide materials to terrorists."

Quite possibly... However, I thought our concern was the irrational?

Rational states are not going to unleash Nuclear hell on anyone. It isn't rational. Irrational states, may indeed unleash WMD's, especially if they realize that they are soon to be destroyed (What makes an irrational person, even more irrational? Seeing the 'writing on the wall'.)

Iran and N. Korea are quite probably our major threats in the world of Nuclear Terrorism. They are also quite possibly two of the more irrational regimes on the planet. If they have radioactive materials, or other WMD's what do you think they will do if they percieve that their 'backs are against the wall'?

That's a million dollar question and I don't know that Bush has an answer (of course, I don't know that Kerry has one either).

voted for war but not really for war

Bush needed military authorization to deal with Saddam from a position of strength; Bush himself said many times that he did not make up his mind to invade until the very end. Was he lying?

voted for the $87m, voted against the $87m,

Kerry favored paying with taxes now and possibly loans to Iraq, Bush favored paying solely through future taxes. Bush threatened to veto the funding if it wasn't his version, so it's disingenuous for him to attack Kerry on this vote. Just a cheap talking point.

Also, if Bush had been realistic about this war, we wouldn't have needed a supplemental spending bill.

clasping his hands prayer-like and giving that little bow, speaking...in...a...slow...annoying...cadence,

Personally, I don't like the way Bush talks out of the side of his mouth to get that good ol' twang. Or his smirk. But this stuff is trivial.

playing ostrich on the looming problems with social security,

Please don't even pretend that Bush deserves an ounce of respect on fiscal responsibility.

having his wife speak for him (and more articulately),

You think women should not speak?

spending 324 words to answer a simple question on Imus.

Oh, you're right. Can't vote for Kerry. The ability to respond to questions smoothly without the help of a speechwriter...oops, wait a minute

Just because its fall, there is no reason that flag football couldn't produce such a tan,

Tosk,

the problem with that is that Kerry didn't get the tan during the flag football game as he claims; according to the article, the students were suprised that he was so tall and that he was so tanned. So Kerry lied about his tan because he can't really tell people he got painted with Instant Tan®.

ps. Kerry got off the bus wearing that tan, then he went to play flag football.

>>>"You think women should not speak?"

Teresa should not speak. She isn't doing her husband any favors. And she speaks more about herself than about John Kerry. She's repulsive as a first lady.

David,

You know, there are varying levels of truth and varying levels of tan.

If Kerry was hoping to boost his tan before the debates, he probably started before his flag football game. He probably used a lot of the tanning lotion that encourages tans even with little sunlight. He may have gone to tanning booths.

Now its true, the campaign response didn't go into the gritty details about how much tan he got playing flag football versus how much tan he got from a bottle or a bed... but if we can have varying levels of honesty about WMD's and how many insurgents are actually Iraqis versus outside terrorists, I'm thinking that griping about the va rying degrees of honesty about a tan is silly indeed. No?

Tosk,

yes of course it's silly, but amusing nonetheless; especially to see how his supporters spin the silliness. Kerry already had a foundation tan when he showed up, LOL, that's some good spin!

David,

I wasn't spinning, I was pointing out perfectly acceptable alternatives to the "OMG, They Lied" response that spewed all over the blog like a seasick man after fininshing a big Italian dinner.

I have to laugh at you guys who claim Libya suddenly saw the light after Iraq was invaded. Diplomatic contacts had been going on for years because Libya had been looking for a way to get sanctions lifted. Libyan support for terrorism decreased in 1992 after UN sanctions were imposed. Sanctions were suspended in April 1999 (before the US invaded Iraq) and finally lifted in September 2003 after Libya resolved the Lockerbie case, and that's when Libya announced that it had agreed to reveal and end its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. It had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the Iraq war.

Mara, so you're arguing that Bush's policies make the U.S. more prone to terrorist attacks (which haven't happened) but had nothing to do with Libya's retreat on WMDs (which did happen).

I am in awe of your superior intellect.

Actually, the memeorandum robot covets hat tips as much as anyone else.

That's why I posted this a few months back.

By the State department's own report on global terrorism attacks increased and were at an all time high in 2003. A quick internet search will supply these details to you, Mark. How come you don't know this, yet feel comfortable drawing the opposite conclusion? I, in turn, am amazed and awed!

Mark,

Libya was well on the road to recovery before Iraq... most of the discussion for the past several years has been about responsibility in the Lockerbie attack and recompensation for the families of those victims.

Lybia has been a "has been" for years. Iran and N. Korea are the real concerns... and they don't seem intimidated... scared enough to push for nuclear power, but not intimidated into backing down.

Squirrel:

Iran and N. Korea are quite probably our major threats in the world of Nuclear Terrorism. They are also quite possibly two of the more irrational regimes on the planet. If they have radioactive materials, or other WMD's what do you think they will do if they percieve that their 'backs are against the wall'?

That's a million dollar question and I don't know that Bush has an answer (of course, I don't know that Kerry has one either).

Yes, that is the million dollar question. Not to channel John Kerry here, but if Bush does have a secret plan I feel it's to ramp up and attack Iran next -- after the election -- ranging from bombing anything that looks like a secure research facility up to a full scale invasion. But in Bush's position I'd have a range of options planned out. I hope pros are wargamming the situation constantly as new data becomes available.

North Korea is the deeper rabbit hole. But I repeat, proposing we make the exact same deal with Iran that we made with NoKo strikes me as aggressively stupid. Edwards really stuck his foot in it there, and no one has done anything to extract it.

Mark,

How will bombing or invading 'not' encourage them to hand over whatever radioactive substances they have to terrorists?

I mean if we tell them our goal is reigme change, then buildup for a strike... why wouldn't the Mullahs simply say "here ya go..."?

That, in my thinking is one of the big questions that the Bush Doctrine doesn't answer... I think it is a very important one.

Ancillary question,

Mark,

Say Bush plans to invade Iran after the election...

Who is he going to use to actually invade? Do we have another supersecret Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force group?

Last time I checked most of our millitary was pretty busy.

;)

Kerry's uncanny orange glow heralded volcanic activity at Mt St Helens in Washington and tremors in California. If he is elected in November, worse catastrophe lurks for us.

Finnpundit displays his ignorance with the following comment: "Unfortunately, Muslim hatred for Jews has put Israel into the position that they have absolutely nothing to lose if they act."

Muslims don't hate Jews, Finn, anymore than all Jews hate Muslims.

Here's a quick quiz: what Muslim country offered Jews a safe haven when a Christian country expelled them and have been living there safely for more than 500 years since?

Mara,

Are we living on the same planet?

Sure, not ALL muslims hate Jews. Millions don't, probably. But millions of Muslims do hate Israel, and they associate Israel with Jews (you know, the people that control Zionist-loving Great Satan America, or whatever).

I'm living on the same planet you are, and it would be great if more of us remembered that we are all on that same planet.

I don't take issue with the fact that many Muslims hate Israel's policies, and that they hate America's support for Israel. These are legitimate policy differences, but I don't agree with Finnpundit saying "Muslim hatred of Jews..." because it's just not the case anymore than it is the case that Jews hate Muslims. Some do. Some don't, but it's fair to say that most Muslims hate Israeli policies, and even by extension, American support of those policies.

No takers on what Muslim country offered a safe haven when Jews were expelled??

Mara,

actually, muslims/Arabs do hate jews, most of them that is. That's something I learned when I dated an Iranian girl. I know, she's not an Arab, but 95 percent of her friends were Arab, so I was around them quite a bit. The things they say amongst each other about jews (not just Israelis) is appalling. European anti-semitism (today, not 500 years ago) is largely coming from Arab immigrants. But you can go back 500 years, or even further to the Crusades to try to bolster your platitudes, but it's weak, very weak.

Tosk:

Where are the Legions?

Assuming the data on the site is accurate, 45% of our Active Combat troops are currently deployed, with 14 of 16 combat brigades (of a grand total of 35) in Iraq. (Which, of course, borders Iran. Logistics shouldn't be much of a problem if the mission shifts.)

16% of our National Guard combat brigades are deployed. If necessary, fresh Guard troops could be rotated into Iraq to fill in for hardened combat brigades moved into offense against Iran. Right now many of the combat troops in Iraq are performing civil engineering, training, and policing duties. Those sound like duties the Guard should be able to pick up quickly and efficiently.

The meme that we're short on muscle right now is a myth. If we want to conquer Iran, we will. The question isn't whether we have the means, the question is what do we want to do, and do we have the will to achieve it.

>>>"No takers on what Muslim country offered a safe haven when Jews were expelled??"

You mean 500 years ago? Who cares.

>>>"By the State department's own report on global terrorism attacks increased and were at an all time high in 2003."

Most of it happenning in Iraq, instead of on U.S. soil. It's called taking the battle to your enemy.

Re Gaddaffi's nukes. If Liberals are going to blame 9/11 because it happenned on Bush's "watch", I choose to give Bush credit for Lybia's nukes for the same reason. See how easy that is?

I hereby reject the implied accusation that my criticism of John Kerry is somehow an endorsement of President Bush.

So, John Kerry votes affirmatively for a resolution giving the President the power to go to war in Iraq but believes that there is no intention to go to war? Too clever by half.

John Kerry cannot elucidate a coherent thought - which, you're right, is a problem for Bush too - because he seems to be incapable of speaking clearly, resolutely, and directly. Bush's photo is in the dictionary next to the word: malapropism.

We elect Presidents, not President's wives. THK's views are no more credible or valuable to the election process than are yours or mine. :)

The Trustees of Social Security and Medicare say the system is, barring any changes, headed to insolvency and soon (depending on how old you are). Kerry advocates maintaining the status quo. Bush has suggested an alternate plan - a flawed one, for sure, but a plan just the same.

Bush's personal ticks - the smirk, the awkward way he holds his hands at his side, the way he pronounces nuclear ('nukular') - are endearingly genuine. Kerry is all about affectation and calculation. Bring...It...On.....! If that ain't calculated then he's just twisted.

And, hey, I am no Bush guy but Kerry just has so many flaws that I can't concieve of voting for him. Not to mention his 5 billion point plan for America, as detailed at www.johnkerry.com.

"You mean 500 years ago? Who cares."

The Jews who still live in Turkey today care. Turkey and Israel are very close allies. Turkey sends their pilots to train in the Israeli airforce, so I'm not going back 500 years to bolster my "platitudes". I'm talking about today. And you don't need to go as far as Iranians to give examples of anti-Semites - there are plenty of Europeans who talk badly about Jews today (especially in France).

This is all off topic, anyway. My point was that there is a general lack of knowledge on this board about the causes and roots of terrorism, and I used Finn's comment as an example. It is the same lack of knowledge that is evident in the Bush administration's misguided war on Iraq.

And Tosk, back to your other point:

"How will bombing or invading 'not' encourage them to hand over whatever radioactive substances they have to terrorists?"

Good question. The Iraninans may be feeding U235 or plutonium to terrorist groups right now. But I live in New York City. Given a choice between New York getting hit by a "radiological device" or a full-scale Hiroshima device, I'll take option (A). Sometimes life's choices suck.

Of course, a lot of this depends on variables that I don't know. How much U235 does Iran have? Have they started producing plutonium? What would the mechanics of materials distribution look like? Can we effectively blockade Iran's borders and sea lanes?

Personally, I hope we can talk Iran down from the nuclear tree. But we won't be able to do that without an effective "or else" even if they are rational. Otherwise, they have every incentive to continue development of a nuclear arms program and no incentive not to.

"Re Gaddaffi's nukes. If Liberals are going to blame 9/11 because it happenned on Bush's "watch", I choose to give Bush credit for Lybia's nukes for the same reason. See how easy that is?"

It's as easy as ignoring the facts, which you guys seem to be real good at. The facts are: 9/11 did happen on Bush's watch, and the lifting of UN sanctions on Libya are responsible for Libya's decision.

>>>"The Jews who still live in Turkey today care."

Mara,

if that is evidence that muslims aren't anti-semites, then by logical extension you'll also have to admit that because there are so many Arabs living in Israel there must not be racism against them. But of course we know that Libs like you blame Israelis of Arab-hatred like the rest of us breathe air and eat food.

>>>"My point was that there is a general lack of knowledge on this board about the causes and roots of terrorism,"

Of course, America is the root cause of terrorism, and misery in general. That's why the U.S. has to be defeated. We were just talking about that on a previous thread.

"Personally, I hope we can talk Iran down from the nuclear tree. But we won't be able to do that without an effective "or else" even if they are rational. Otherwise, they have every incentive to continue development of a nuclear arms program and no incentive not to."

An incentive made all the more urgent by Bush's doctrine of pre-emption.

"But of course we know that Libs like you blame Israelis of Arab-hatred like the rest of us breathe air and eat food."
"Of course, America is the root cause of terrorism, and misery in general. That's why the U.S. has to be defeated."

Hooyah! Keep on putting up those strawmen to knock down, David! You don't know what I think.

Mara,

my strawman proves your "evidence" about Turkey is just that, turkey.

Mara, the Turks love their jews. So much that they bomb their synagogues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3279063.stm

Mara, how many of those terrorist attacks were in the United States? What's the regional breakdown? How many were attacks on military forces instead of civilian forces? (My point being the military expects to be in harms' way, and is prepared for it.)

In case you're, I'm assuming we will be hit again; I'm approaching the problem as one of minimizing risks instead of eliminating them. And while I'd be the first to agree that not all Moslems are terrorists, these days pretty much all terrorists are moslems. I'll worry more about why they hate us when they no longer have the infrastructure to hurt us. In the meantime, I suggest taking every Imam who vows to destroy the Great Satan at their word and reply with a one-way ticket to 72 virgins.

Mara,

"The announcement by Lybia to allow international weapons inspectors and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs clearly reflects the chilling impact of the arrest of Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Iraq and Libya's longstanding interest in having U.S. and U.N. sanctions removed," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/22/world/main589735.shtml

David,
Your strawman arguments don't prove anything other than that you're wedded to your prejudices. If you looked just a little deeper you'd have found out that it was terrorists funded outside of Turkey who were responsible for that bombing, and it was condemned, not only by the government, but by the Turkish people as well.

That should have been "in case you're wondering", of course.

So Mara, what's your advice? How would you prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability? How do we make them understand that we are not their enemy?

Be John Kerry for a few minutes. What would you do?

Well, David, we all know how credible CBS news is lately, don't we?

It's pretty telling that they credit the arrest of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq and "Libya's longstanding interest in having U.S. and U.N. sanctions removed," with Libya's decision when those sanctions were ALREADY removed when Iraq was invaded.

Jeez, you guys are too easy.

Mara,

not so easy. The sanctions had already been removed yes, but Lybia's nukes weren't revealed until Saddam's capture.

Oh no, Mark. Let me be George Bush for a few minutes - it's so much easier! "Let's smoke 'em out! We'll find em! Stay the course! Bring it on!"
We'll send our boys over there and get them bogged down in the same f(()*& mess we've created in Iraq! There ya go!

Four more years of the idiotic foreign policies of this fubar administration and it won't even matter who wins in 2008. Kerry just couldn't do worse than this bunch of incompetent yaps.

MJT: It could not have been more obvious all along that the Germans and French wouldn’t help no matter what. But I’m glad all the same they did us the favor of clearing it up for those who thought otherwise.

Could I refer you to this document? It indicates willingness of these countries to actually fight terrorism shoulder-to-shoulder with the US, as opposed to an inexplicable and poorly-thought-out jaunt into Iraq. And I'd say that's more important.

Yeah, Mara, that's about what I expected.

>>>"I REALLY want to hope you're right on that one." That's great. I too can see how an arms race and nuclear standoff in the middle east would do wonders for whirled peas.

And for my next trick: Happy Thought Oncology -- which is how we got into this mess to begin with. Strangely enough the chattering class thinks we should go back to it to think things are right. Yup, I DO hope I'm wrong about Iran... just like "I DO hope that mark on my shoudler isn't getting bigger."

David,
This, right off the CIA website:
"UN sanctions were suspended in April 1999 and finally lifted in September 2003 after Libya resolved the Lockerbie case. In December 2003, Libya announced that it had agreed to reveal and end its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction."

And, this sums it up; there's no mention of the capture of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A16583-2003Dec19&notFound=true

I'm signing off. See ya' tomorrow.

Mara

I was going to stay out of this, but I must say that I hope you aren't Jewish. I am Jewish and certainly don't want to be associated with such silliness. I won’t even give your straw man arguments the dignity of response as they are petty and really address nothing cogent today. By the way the nation most friendly to Jews and especially to State of Israel, is the United States and it is not even close. I shutter to think what the world would be like for Jews without her support. Certainly Turkey isn't going to cover the difference of such loss of friendship. Eliminate all Christian nations and leave us a world of only Muslims and Jews are Jews better off? PLEASE! You are silly! I will add that the most pre-disposed Americans in the Nation most supportive of Jews are not American Muslims that is a fact and would also be an utter joke, it is Social Conservatives, you know the Evangelical types you on the left consider 'evil', you can also add Mormons to that list.

Turkey is more tolerant compared to what? Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan? Please! My wife and I lost half of our family 60 years ago and I have got to believe many thought just like you, hoping against hope, spinning arguments on heads of pins. I consider your words as spoken by one with their head firmly embedded in the sand at best, disingenuous at worst. Either way they are ridiculous to put forth in today’s climate. Christianity today is way more accepting and tolerant of Jews especially as it is practiced in the United States, it is not even a close call. Notice I gave special dispensation to Christianity in America, because Europe is a hopeless cause. They allowed for the death of my family generations ago and with out the leadership here in America you are so soured upon, the dangers would be ever increasing in many parts of the world.

Bottom line you don’t convince me. If you aren’t Jewish then you show ignorance, if you are then shame on you. To you few Muslims that support, thank you, to the more numerous Christian I thank you as well. Mara doesn’t come close to speaking for this Jew.

Too bad Mara's gone. Then we could have asked her, "So when exactly was Saddam captured?"

The ABB coccoom must be so soft and comforting...

On a more serious note, the allure of the ABB position probably is the illusion of control that it gives. By assigning all the troubles of the world onto one person, the act of defying and hopefully purging that person must feel incredibly empowering. Railing against Bush, who in theory could harm the person but in practice won't must be so much more satisfying than contemplating enemies much less visible yet much more dangerous.

I'm getting seriously upset at the ABB crowd, up to and including John Kerry.

Ah, Mara. I knew some idiot would pipe in with a claim that Muslims don’t hate Jews. And I’m sure that everyone can find a Muslim today who, when confronted, will claim that they don’t hate Jews, they only hate the State of Israel. Yet these same Muslims will not speak up when people amongst their own community do openly advocate the elimination of Israel and the extermination of the Jews. Do we really have to stick our heads in the sand like the peace-advocates of the 1930’s, and claim that this is only hyperbole?

The lessons learned in World War 2 surely point out that such speech cannot be taken for granted. If Muslims continue to permit the zealots amongst them to speak out, we can and should only conclude that the silent ones are in agreement.

But you’re right: it’s true that the Turks are cooperating with Israel on many levels (and please let’s not try to drag in what happened 500 years ago). But this is completely because of their distrust of Arab countries to the south; in other words, short-term geopolitical maneuvering. However, even Turkey tends to be circumspect when it comes to condemning the utterances of fanatics amongst their midst; in the final analysis, can we trust the Turks to do the right thing when genocide looms? They certainly don’t have a good track record on that with the Armenians, or the Kurds…

As to Libya, you’ve got your time line prioritized all wrong. The sanctions with the UN didn’t matter one whit; what matters were the sanctions leveled by the US, as they prevent Libya from joining the petrodollar market. Thus Libya did go the extra mile to please America, and that happened after Bush’s liberation of Iraq.

David wrote:

"Korean War (peak troop numbers, by country, excluding Republic of Korea forces):

United States: 348,000

snip

Total: 16 nations; 387,570 combat troops

Iraq War (troop numbers, by country, as of July 2004, excluding Iraqi forces):

United States: 126,500

snip

Total: 32 nations; 149,985 combat troops"

So, the US has 221,5000 fewer troops committed to Iraq than it did to Korea and the total number of allied troops in Iraq is 237,515 less than there were in Korea. Your point would be what, exactly? It sure looks to me like the US did the vast majority of the heavy lifting in both cases....

>>>"Christian I thank you as well. Mara doesn’t come close to speaking for this Jew."

Samuel,

on this thread that would be me; and you're most welcome. We'll support Israel against Arab fascism for as long as it takes; generations if need be.

I wouldn't at all doubt if Mara were jewish; Most Jews here in America are Libs and that's a damn shame. They finally get a homeland after millenia, and then they go jeopardize it for the sake of a false Liberal religion.

>>>"It sure looks to me like the US did the vast majority of the heavy lifting in both cases...."

Al,

show me where the U.S. hasn't always done the heavy lifting.

That's the silliest part of multilateralism; we do all the work anyway, whether our troops wear blue helmets or not.

...show me where the U.S. hasn't always done the heavy lifting.

You guys took it pretty easy during the War of 1812. Probably why we were able to kick your butts.

"They didn’t lend a hand for their own reasons that have nothing to do with the Bush Adminstration’s alleged lack of diplomacy." - This is very true. The last year has shown exactly what kinds of internal political forces are at work in both France and Germany.

Gerhard Schröder and his Social Democratic Party have been beaten badly in four major elections and bruised in two others. Both of the two major parties are seeing their support base erode and it looks as if the party of Democrat Socialism is gaining strength. It's being downplayed and will be interesting to watch.

Three political books made the best sellers list in France, La France Qui Tombe by Nicolas Baverez, Ouest contre Ouest by Andre Glucksmann and L'Arrogance Française by Romain Gubert and Emmanuel Saint-Martin. The harshest critiques I've seen - French to French. Even though it's not current this article mentions all three. http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/for_its_intellectuals_france_falters.htm

hey double,

can you suggest a comparable brit blog or two? I'd like to know what the tommies are thinking over there.

double-plus-ungood,

Its a good thing you guys quit when you did. We were just getting warmed up. You got yourselves a good ol' fashion Jacksonian ass whooping at New Orleans:

More than 2,000 British had been killed or wounded and several hundred more were captured. The American loss was eight killed and 13 wounded.

http://www.danielhaston.com/history/war-1812/neworleans-battle.htm

Yeah, I know, you burned down DC. Hey, now that I think about it...maybe you could do it again!

Mark asks,

"Mara, how many of those terrorist attacks were in the United States?"

Well, none... about the same number of terrorists attacks in the United States in the couple years before 9/11 and the Bush Doctrine and the Homeland Security Dept and the PATRIOT ACT.

Absence of data in a small sample proves nothing. In 10 or 20 years, I'll happily toast the Bush Doctrine if it holds. But, I'll hold my applause until I see something besides hat tricks and magic scarves.

Tosk

"Kerry’s entire anti-Bush strategy rests on convincing the American public that Bush did not try, or did not try hard enough, or did not try properly, to get the French and Germans to help."

Well, no. Kerry's anti-Bush strategy rests on convincing the public that Bush has basicly failed at everything he has ever done.

Since for most of Bush's actions this is objectively true, the difficulty is only in persuading the american public to look at the truth.

J Thomas, please provide data to support this statement.

"Well, no. Kerry's anti-Bush strategy rests on convincing the public that Bush has basicly failed at everything he has ever done."

A plurality will suffice.

David, your right, Theresa Kerry should not speak. I know people who have changed their minds about Kerry since seeing and listening to his wife and are now voting for Bush just because they dislike her so badly. Personally since I'm a Bush fan I think Theresa should speak her mind everyday of the week..

BTW, A girl came into the ER tonight, while I was working, wearing a T-shirt that said..

"I VOTED FOR KERRY, BEFORE I DIDN'T"

HA: Its a good thing you guys quit when you did. We were just getting warmed up. You got yourselves a good ol' fashion Jacksonian ass whooping at New Orleans:

Didn't count, the war was over by then.

Heh. 189 years, and we're still discussing that one.

Mark, it looks like this is something you'd want to argue about. But it isn't arguable, it's just fact. So do your own homework.

If you don't want to bother to look up the evidence that Bush has failed at everything he's done that required judgement, then take my word for it.

"If you don't want to bother to look up the evidence that Bush has failed at everything he's done that required judgement, then take my word for it."

J Thomas,
That's a cop out, and you know it is. Your the one that made the statement so your the one that needs to supply the information to back it up. The fact you won't (or can't) speaks for itself.

>>>"That's a cop out, and you know it is. Your the one that made the statement so your the one that needs to supply the information to back it up. The fact you won't (or can't) speaks for itself."

Oh Cathy, you're missing the point. The evidence isn't really that necessary. What's important is the "basic truth" behind the non-existent evidence. Don't get hung up on the details and technicalities. Just accept it.

For all of you who still doubt that Muslims hate the Jews, you might want to check out this little nugget:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD79104

Where are the Muslims who are outraged with this display of bile?

Mara -

You had better not rely too heavily on the Israel-Turkey alliance for your argument. There has been a lot of noise recently on that front: specifically, the new islamist parliamentary majority in Turkey is starting to cause problems for Jews living in Turkey. In addition, the incidence of violent anti-semitism in Turkey is up markedly in recent years.

Theresa Kerry should not speak. I know people who have changed their minds about Kerry since seeing and listening to his wife and are now voting for Bush just because they dislike her so badly.

Don't be too hard ot Theresa Kerry... I'll give TK credit for immediately disagreeing with her husband on Bush's conduct during the morning of 9-11. She thought Bush did the right thing. Theresa was right on that one. Kerry, however, dissed him and hoped to Jesus that no one found out that he did nothing for forty minutes.

Plus, I know people who are looking at Kerry, in part, because his wife isn't invisible, while Laura Bush has done "nothing" as First Lady. That TK has been thrown in the closet, pulled out of the closet, thrown back in again like a windbreaker in fall is lost on them.

Ben,
I'm not worried about the Turkey/Israel alliance. It will weather any little tempests caused by a few fundamentalists on the right. Every democratic government has to cope with fringe elements, and it doesn't usually upset foreign policy or international alliances.

My point in raising this issue yesterday was to caution against simplistic thinking (i.e, Muslims hate Jews). Black and white thinking belies a general lack of understanding or curiosity about the roots of terrorism. Until there is a deeper understanding of terrorism, there's not much hope we'll be able to deal with it. First rule of combat: know your enemy.

Mara,

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD79104

It examines public attitudes towards Jews in Saudi Arabia, Turkey notwithstanding. Simplistic thinking?

Bill, why do you think Laura Bush "has done nothing as first lady?" Further more what is it that "First Ladies" are supposed to do?

They don't make or carry out policy for goodness sake. So just what is the role of a "Furst Lady?"

As for Laura Bush, in November of 2001 she became the first, first lady to ever give a "Presidential Radio Address." She did that about the plight of Afghan women and children under the Taliban. She also participated in "roundtable" developing civil society in Afganistan.

Further, she travels and speaks extensively about her platform of Literacy and Education as well as Heart Disease.

All of that aside, I'm still interested in what it is we expect of a First Lady. Here is my take on it.

I think it allows us an inside view to the President. One that we don't get to see any other way. A view that informs us to some degree of what "This man" is all about personally. With Laura Bush we see someone who is calm and steady. Someone who has great values and a hugh heart. Someone who has spent her life working on a platform of early childhood development so that our kids can get the best start possible.

Do first ladies have an important role in politics? I think they do and they allow the general public someone to connect with. Personally I think there is no comparrison to Laura Bush and Teresa H. Kerry.

I would imagine Laura Bush gets favorable marks from "all" registered voters. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were some where around two thirds of all voters finding her favorable.

I think some where around the early part of 2009 we might be able to form our first ever opinion of what we expect of a "FIRST GENTLEMAN." Sad but true, we haven't seen the last of him yet!

Mara -

A few fundamentalists on the right? Turkey is a parliamentary system. Those "few fundamentalists" control every aspect of the government. They can turn policy 180 degrees in the other direction, notwithstanding the historic relationship between Turkey & Israel.

I don't necessarily believe that all muslims hate Jews, but you shouldn't discount an idea just because it is "simple." Sometimes simple ideas are correct.

Bill, why do you think Laura Bush "has done nothing as first lady?" Further more what is it that "First Ladies" are supposed to do?

I for one don't think she's been "MIA." But people around me who are in the ABB crowd seem to have been velocitized (you know, that feelign when you've been driving at 65mph+ and suddenly drive into a town) by Hillary for better or worse. Comparitively, Laura Bush is a "background job" which is not a bad thing. Of course a lot of it is also part of Bush Derangement Syndrome where they'll run any negative model of their fantasy world in their head.

Yes, Ben, "a few fundamentalists". The current party in power, the Justice and Development Party, under the leadership of Recep Erdogan has its roots in an Islamic party, but repudiated an Islamic platform in order to be electable by the largely secular Turkish electorate. The Turks, on the whole, have been living much closer to terrorism than we have for years, and are more terrified of Islamic fundamentalism than we are. They view it as an unwelcome import from the Saudis, who have been funding Wahabi efforts in Turkey for years.

Mara,

Arabs and muslims hate jews for the most part. Live with it. You have the info, if you choose to ignore it, then we're moving on without you.

Put a sock in it, David.You'd rather cling to your prejudices than deal with anything that flies in the face of them. That's your problem, not mine.

I don't cling to my prejudices; I just refuse to swallow your platitudes.

And I challenge you to shed those platitudes.:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD79104

go on, have a quick look, if you dare.

I looked, David, and the only thing it proves is that there are a lot of ignorant Arabs. There are, however, millions and millions of Moslems who are not Arabs, and don't share those views.

Mara,

quote me one or two will ya. Find me that one or two who don't believe 9/11 was a zionist conspiracy.

Who's on first?

Buy Wellbutrin online cheap now
at http://www.wellbutrin-online.org

Purchase Wellbutrin cheap online
at http://www.wellbutrin-online.org

You should enter the most inspiring and resourceful
online poker site on the web! We
are happy to present you with the most informative piece of data you can find on
the online poker. The best of online poker tips, online pokers tournaments,
online poker
strategy, online poker games,
online poker rules.
To satisfy your curiosity, click on the online
online poker news,
and if you wish to download online poker game, please do so http://www.online---poker.us !

@ naga anal @ ekscibionistka @ bozena porno panienki @ fetyszyzm azjatki porno @ laseczki wirtualny seks @ studentka kobiety erotyka @ seksi rodzinny @ wibratorem katarzyna @ seksi hardkore @ kamera lolitki gole @ pornografia studia @ wakacje foki @ ubikacje wargi sromowe @ w dupe sexisearch @ dymanie porn @ porn gratis @ seksi blondynka wypina dupcie @ angelika dziewczyny porno @ ostra laseczka @ nagosc mulatki @ kamery ssanie @ oddawanie nimfomanki filmy @ toalety dom publiczny @ jowita nimfomanki panienki

This is the perfect chance for you to finacial
cash advance dollars for you loan
payday advance money here.

Look for Skelaxin cheap online at
http://www.skelaxin-online.net/

Find Skelaxin cheap now online at
http://www.skelaxin-online.net/

azjatki
murzynki
piersi
geje
filmy porno
lesbijki
naturystki
modelki
sex kamery
nastolatki
ukryta kamera
starsze
sex oralny
sex analny
fetysz
erotyka
lesby
amatorki
polki nago
stare baby
laski
cipki
znane nago
akuna
cruel family

We really don't have any enemies. It's just that some of our best
friends are trying to kill us.
Loan http://www.epaycash.com

If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage. But
this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine, is
somehow enobled and none dare criticize it.
Payday Loans http://www.paylesspaydayloans.com

thnx

Aeg , Aged , Amica , Antom , Ariston , Bosch , Candy , Canon , Creative , Delonghi , Dyson , Electrolux , Eltax , Emtec , Faber , Fuji , Gorenje , Hoover , Hp , Indesit , Iriver , Jvc , Kenwood , Kodak , Krups , Lg , Liebherr , Lowepro , Marantz , Mastercook , Miele , Minolta , Moulinex , Nikon , Olympus , Panasonic , Philips , Pioneer , Polar , Samsung , Sharp , Siemens , Smeg , Sony , Tefal , Thomson , Whirlpool , Yamaha , Zanussi , Telewizory , Telewizory projekcyjne , Telewizory lcd , Telewizory plazmowe , Projektory lcd , Kamery cyfrowe , Kamery video , Kasety do kamer , Karty firewire , Przewody firewire , Aparaty cyfrowe , Torby do kamer i aparatów , Kino domowe , Odtwarzacze dvd , Magnetowidy video , Magnetowidy cyfrowe , Nagrywarki dvd , Wieże hi-fi , Magnetofony , Radiomagnetofony , Amplitunery , Wzmacniacze , Odtwarzacze cd , Odtwarzacze minidisc , Zestawy kolumn , Subwoofery , Walkmany , Odtwarzacze mp3 , Dyktafony , Car audio , Karty pamięci , Pralki , Kuchnie , Piekarniki , Zmywarki , Lodówki , Kuchenki mikrofalowe , Płyty gazowe , Płyty elektryczne , Telewizory , Aparaty cyfrowe , DVD , Kamery cyfrowe , Aparaty cyfrowe , Lodówki , Telewizory , Pralki , Aparaty cyfrowe , Aparaty cyfrowe

dating free personals photodating free personals servicedating free personals singledating free personals sitedating free personals totallydating free personals trialdating friendship personalsdating gay hiv personalsdating gay online personalsdating gay personalsdating halifax personalsdating hawaii personals picture servicesdating hermaphrodite personalsaustralia gay personalsaustralia gay personals aliceaustralian gay personalsbaltimore gay personalsbareback gay personalsbdsm gay personalsbear gay personalsbi gay personalsblack free gay man personalsblack free gay personalsblack gay male personalsblack gay man free personalsblack gay man personalsa1 adult chataaa adult sex chatace adult chatace adult erotic chatcanada christian dating servicecanadian dating servicescasual dating service sexcatholic dating servicecatholic dating servicescherry blossom dating servicechicago dating serviceschinese dating servicedating international sitedating internet online personals service sitedating internet sitedating internet site start stepsdating internet site ukdating internet site webdating interracial jasmine sitedating interracial online service single site tipdating interracial siteswingers adult personalsswingers adult personals adstampa adult personalstennessee adult personalstexas adult personalstexas swinger personalstoronto adult personalstotally free adult personalsuk adult personalsuk adult photo personalsuk photo personals adultutah adult personalsvancouver adult personalsvirginia adult personalswashington dc adult personalswisconsin adult personalsxxx adult personalsdating speed ukdating free site ukdating services ukdating online service ukdating internet ukadult dating ukdating internet site ukdating site uk webagency dating in ukdating gay ukdating free services ukdating service ukdating online site uk webagency dating free online ukchat dating ukdating free service ukpuranol weight losspyruvate weight lossquick and easy weight lossquick easy diet weight lossquick easy weight lossquick safe weight lossquick weight lossquick weight loss centerquick weight loss centersquick weight loss dietquick weight loss diet planquick weight loss dietsquick weight loss exercisequick weight loss for teenquick weight loss freequick weight loss pillquick weight loss planquick weight loss productquick weight loss programonline black moviesporno black moviesreal black moviessecret black movies

klimatyzacja
projektowanie wnętrz
jiddu
3d
reklama
projektowanie stron
nieruchomości
forum ludzkie
poezja
swietlica
psycholog
agroturystyka
opony

online casino

20 latki sex na zywo @ 20 latki sex nietrzezwe @ 20 latki sex niewolnice sexualne @ 20 latki sex od tylu @ 20 latki sex odurzone @ 20 latki sex ostro @ 20 latki sex ostry @ 20 latki sex pieniadze @ 20 latki sex pijane @ 20 latki sex pizda @ 20 latki sex pizdy @ 20 latki sex podryw @ 20 latki sex podrywacze @ 20 latki sex podwiazki @ 20 latki sex podwojnie @ 20 latki sex przerosniete @ 20 latki sex przystojne @ 20 latki sex przystojny @ 20 latki sex rajstopy @ 20 latki sex rozjebane @ 20 latki sex siksy @ 20 latki sex szybko @ 20 latki sex w 2 osoby @ 20 latki sex w cipe @ 20 latki sex w cipke @ 20 latki sex w dupe @ 20 latki sex w dziurke @ 20 latki sex w kakao @ 20 latki sex w pupe @ 20 latki sex w szparke @ 20 latki sex we dwoje @ 20 latki sex wyrosniete @ 20 latki sex za forse @ 20 latki sex za kase @ 20 latki sex za pieniadze @ 20 latki sex zgabnie @ 20 latki sex zgrabne @ 20 latki sikac @ 20 latki sikac 2 pary @ 20 latki sikac 2pary @ 20 latki sikac brutalnie @ 20 latki sikac cycate @ 20 latki sikac darmo @ 20 latki sikac doswiadczone @ 20 latki sikac fetysz @ 20 latki sikac fetyszystki @ 20 latki sikac forsa @ 20 latki sikac free @ 20 latki sikac grupowo @ 20 latki sikac latwo

Phentermine

Phentermine Information

Order Phentermine

Buy Phentermine

Cheap Phentermine

Online Phentermine Information

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack

very nice site. Lodówki, ladna stronka, ciekawa informacja, katalog, katalog spis

Erectile dysfunction patients worldwide are opting to buy cialis for the fact that cheap cialis works in the body for a full 36 hours and is also useful on certain risky conditions like prostate cancer and diabetes. To inform you more on Cialis so that you can buy cialis online unhesitatingly, it is to be mentioned that just after the administration of cialis, the erectile dysfunction drug gets mixed into the system and ensures smooth blood flow to the penis and triggers off erections necessary for sexual intercourse between partners. After procuring Cialis through cialis online, if you administer the drug in accordance with the instructions of the doctor, you would be able to get rid of erectile dysfunction at the earliest.

Among all the erectile dysfunction pills available in the market, it is levitra that has carved out a niche name for itself and levitra prescription has become much sought after for the impotency afflicted patients. The chief factor responsible for the tremendous popularity of levitra is that this medication to treat erectile dysfunction has shown successful results in treating impotency in men with health risks like hypertension, diabetes and prostate surgery and as such you should opt for levitra prescription online instantly. Bear in mind that levitra without prescription would not be able to show off the necessary results as levitra is a prescription-based drug only and should be taken only according to the instructions of the doctor.

Viagra is the first oral drug for male sexual disfunction. It dilates blood vessels in the penis, allowing the inflow of blood needed for an erection.

In clinical studies with propecia in men 18-41 years of age, the mean value of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decreased from 0.7 ng/mL at baseline to 0.5 ng/mL at Month 12. When PROPECIA is used for treatment of male pattern hair loss in older men who also have benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), consideration should be given to the fact that, in older men with BPH, PSA levels are decreased by approximately 50%.

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk