This is so last week.

I think the real Kissinger is a complex reality somewhere inbetween the monstrosity painted by Hitchens and the peerless statesman painted by the likes of Oliver Kamm. Regardless, if you catch Hitchens' wrath he will never stop prosecuting it. Kissinger rues the day Hitchens was born.

And if there is doubt about the character of Kissinger, let there be none about Pinochet. If there is a theological hell, he can expect a swift arrival there.

Hitchens also has an article on Powell in Foreign Affairs. Powell doesn't come off too well.

El linko.

Hitchens has had a serious hard-on for Kissinger for decades.

Hitchens is an overglorified idealist who only sometimes happens to find himself on the right side of the fence. Unfortunately this isn’t one of those times. I pose to Hitchens, and to you, this question. Do you think Hitchens could’ve done a better job? Do you honestly think that if Hitchens had been in Kissinger’s place the world would be better off today? I can only pray to God that the reigns of power never be handed over to such a reckless waffling wavering drunk.

I get a kick out of the fact that Hitchens is only drunk when people don't agree with him.

I've never trusted Hitchens, period, and so while I have occasionally (very) quoted him when he's said something I found piquant, I mostly avoid him like the plague.

Complicity in Latin American fascism can only be fairly analyzed if you view it as an alternative to complicity in Latin American Communism. For Kissinger, and most others, that was the choice we faced, at least in their view at the time (a view I think history has done more to vindicate than dispel): allow Communist expansion, or back seedy people we do not much like because the American people have neither the will nor the resources to do more.

If you cannot acknowledge the Sandinista death squads, the murderous Shining Path, and so on, if you cannot acnowledge the remote possibility that Chile was giving every indication of going down the same path as Hungary and many other states the Soviets destabilized before staging a coup and that therefore, perhaps, backing Pinochet was a better choice even though we knew he was a bad man--if you cannot acknowledge that this is even POSSIBLE, or that a decent and well-informed person might think it--then you cannot have a reasonable conversation about Central American fascism and America's sometime support of it.

Ditto if you cannot acknowledge that places like Chile are now liberal democracies in large part due to the action of successive U.S. administrations after Kissinger.

This matters more than you might think today. It is entirely possible that we will fail in our efforts to democratize Iraq. Those of us who supported this war from the beginning (including, presumably, Hitchens) have always known that we might fail. If we do fail, we may well find ourselves in a horrible predicament: allow a Musharaaf-style brute to take over the nation, and be accused forevermore of "selling out" Iraq or of "lying" about our true intentions, or, turning around and allowing utter chaos to rule the place while we simply leave.

And don't kid yourself, Michael, if that happens you'll be one of those called a fascist apologist. You won't be the first or the last.

It's depressing to think. But this is how some people work. Some people will never accept that "the lesser of two evils" is an acceptable way to conduct foreign policy. Hitchens, historically, has been one of them. If we fail in Iraq--I don't think we will, but we might--I find myself wondering what kind of blame Hitch will assign?

Hitchens has a real hard on for Kissinger, and I've never really understood why. I've always thought it overblown, and certainly over dramatic.

I am a big fan of Hitchens. However, I would take with huge servings of salt anything he has to say on his principal pet obsessions: (i) Henry Kissinger, (ii) Mother Teresa, or (iii) the Sudanese Aspirin Factory. His positions on each of these matters in particular are so hyperbolic and unbelievable as to have become pathological fixations. (He has recently toned down his anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian rhetoric as it doesn't fit well with his newfound anti-Islamofascist principles.)

His case against Kissinger, even if we take at face value the bits and pieces of various purported memos and conversations, is weak at best. By these standards, we should bring war crimes and/or crimes against humanity proceedings against every other living world leader presently or formerly in office, including Bush, Clinton, Carter, Chirac, Jospin, Juppet, Blair... This would no doubt please different people for different reasons, but is hardly a way to run a world. On this basis, there were many sound arguments for opposing Pinochet's extradition from Great Britain.

The 10,000-15,000 Argentine desaparecidos was tragic (Hitchens' figure of 15-30 thousand appears inflated). Pinochet's dictatorship claimed 3,000-5,000 lives. Horrible indeed. In neither case, however did Henry Kissinger or the U.S. government actually instigate these killings, even if they turned a blind eye to them. (The Kissinger/CIA role in the Pinochet coup in particularly is mostly fantasy.)

Now, consider the mass political and ethnic killings in Rwanda, Algeria, Iraq, Sudan, Congo, Tibet, Cambodia numbering in each case in the several hundreds of thousand to well over a million. Now, consider the complicity of France, Moscow, China...

In this context, to single out Henry Kissinger (or even U.S. policy towards Latin American dictatorships) for special tyrannical mention is ridiculous. It is the same type of thinking that calls a conflict between 5 million Jews (living together with over a million Arabs) and 3-1/2 million Palestinians the single major obstacle to world peace on a planet where tens of millions die from war and oppression annually.

Dean Esmay says that Dean Esmay "never trusted Hitchens, period," and that he "mostly avoid[s] him like the plague." This, of course, is a contradiction with previous statemens of Dean Esmay.

Dean Esmay listed Hitchens on his "Pundits I Like," list, while decrying Hitchens nastyness.

As an aside, FactCheck thinks that Hitchens is drunk both when he's right and when he's wrong.

I think Pinoche was a tryannical scumbag and I will be glad when he is dead.

But it is hard to take his critics seriously, as most of the anti-pinoche types were appologists for Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Yasser, Saddam and every other Leftist tryant and tinpot dictator from now until Christmas.

Even worse, they attempted to link Pinoche's tryannical crimes and fascism to "free market capitalism" and with liberty lovers such as Milton Friedman - which is crap.

One can stand by Chile's free market reforms and still be against death squads and other oppression. To say that Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" supported death squads or fascism in Chile is vile and untrue propaganda. Friedman also worked with Leftist regimes to refrom their economic systems, are they suggesting that Friedman was also a communist?

I hope Hitch does not fall into this catagory of hypocrital Leftist propagandists who make intellegent discussions of Pinoche's regime impossible to discuss.

I will read his piece to find out.

Whoo Hoo, 2 points to Michael & Hitch for proper use of the term Fascist! I was beginning to wonder if anyone remembered what fascism actually was.

:)

Ratatosk

Actually, I'm a bit disappointed by the comment over at Harry's Place. As someone who is quasi-conservative, I think liberals tend to misjudge the right far more than the right misjudges them. I find folks on the right are far less ideological, and more open to ideas than those on the left. Hitchens' opinions are always welcome, but not always accepted.

MT,

I don't know on this one. Hitchen's evidence is certainly insufficient to his conclusion. Doesn't mean he's wrong of course, but he isn't compelling.

I think Hitchens piece, and Dean Esmay's critique of it, present those on the Dem/Left side who got accused of being "pro-Saddam" because they may have been anti-war, a great opportunity to consider Kissinger's options in a binary context, where there may be no pleasant alternatives.

And add into the mix of the condemnations from an armchair journalist/observer, the responsibilities of being the primary figure in the "good" Superpower, tapped with the thankless job of dealing with National Security and the threat of Communism - something a self-described former "Trotskyite" might not understand.

And I say this as someone who really enjoys a good Hitchens evisceration. The boy has skillz.

This reminds me of a different, but similar connundrum, on a smaller scale - faced by the CIA. Can they deal with highly unsavory characters as informants to shore up our human intelligence in the field? During the Clinton Administration, we decided that the CIA shouldn't engage these nasty individuals.

There are many people, post 9/11 (and perhaps pre-9/11) who think that policy change was a huge mistake.

What's the bigger crime? Working with thugs, murderers and scumbags at least with the perceived intent of proteting our National security interests? Or abandoning policies of engagement with bad people in the name of "morality" and forcing the consequences of such an abandonment on the American people?

It's funny to watch these criticisms in light of our current policies toward Iran. We now have people on the far-left saying that not only is it a war crime to pre-emptively attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but we shouldn't even be trying to encourage a student-led popular revolt to overthrow the Mullahs (that's Imperial meddling!), and that Iran having nukes would be a good check on the Ziono-Americano-Military-Industrial-Hegemonic-Complex!

These are the current "Trotskyites."

Mike said: "I find folks on the right are far less ideological, and more open to ideas than those on the left."

While I think it depends entirely on the subgroup of right (or left) that you're talking about, I do agree that the past few years have seen less inclusiveness and openess (and more ideological dogma) from the Left. Indeed, it seems to me that the most tolerant group
currently is the vastly undersupported Libretarians.

The question is, should a political party be 'inclusive' or 'tolerant'? By, Inclusive I mean adopting some of another groups ideals, which to me, smakcs of 'too many cooks in ther kitchen'. By, tolerant, I mean allowing others to hold beliefs and ideals contrary to yours and accepting the difference.

Inclusiveness, I think waters down political parties. By trying to appease everyone, as the democrats have tried on the Left Spectrum, they fail to provide a stable and understandable platform. Tolerance, though, I think is much more American. There is no reason that all Americans need to agree on a particular subject. There is however, a great need for understanding that we don't all need to agree, and we can disagree peacefully.

How much better we would be if all Americans took the view of Jefferson, when it comes to domestic issues. For what more inclusiveness and tolerance could we show?

"...(O)ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (Notes on Virginia, 1785.)

Indeed.

Ratatosk

SoCalJustice,

Are you implying that it was impossible for the U.S. to take an anti-communist stance without allying with and in some cases training and supporting murderers and despots? would you be willing to concede in any way, whether it be Greece, Nicaragua or Chile, that the cure was as bad or sometimes worse than the disease? Do you endorse such realpolitik manuevers now in the new American century? Especially in light of embarassing past alliances with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban?

Though I consider myself more a libertarian than a conservative (I support gay rights/marriage, separation of church and state, etc) I would recommend Hitchen's work as a good read. The US has done a lot of dirty work in Central and South America, and it's clear that we needed a change of direction in how we handle those countries that present us a "common enemies" scenario. I think an airing of where we were in the 70's is a good place to start in ensuring that we don't make the same mistakes again, vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan. Clearly the potential is there for a repeat, and it would not be in our best interest to do so.
Articles are relevent and "essential reads" based on their content, not their bend, and I think that Hitchens has shown a consistent level of superior content.

“Especially in light of embarassing past alliances with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban?”

What about Joseph Stalin? Did FDR act wrong in forming a relationship with this evil man? Of course not. The United States should have exerted more pressure on the right wing dictators---but essentially it did the right thing during the Cold War. Did somebody promise you a rose graden? If they did---they lied to you!

Anyone want to talk about those Evil Right-Wing Torries in the Revolution? Or the pro-fascist American Firsters in WW2?

C'mon, it is just as relevent as Harry's post, which seems to be about bashing the right-wing of the past. I suspect you would hear crickets chirping from today's rightwingers if Hitch were to bash Charles Lindburgh. But so what?

If today's rightwing prefers to not obsess about the past mistakes in the past, it might be because today's Right are the real Progressives trying to solve the problems of the present and future while today's Left are the Reactionaires wallowing in the past.

Because, other than a beaten-to-death partisan history discussion, Pinoche and Kissinger and the FP of the 1970s means JACK in today's world.

Unless it is to make a lame nonsensical point that somehow today's Iraq is 1970s Chile (?).

Hmm at that time there wasnt much democratic countries to talk with, what was the democratic force in Latin America at that time? i just remember some human rights activist without any political force... Kissinger choose the lesser of evils for the time, unless we wanted to occupy the whole place a start a democratic war...

Is Hitchens criticizing Roosevelt help to Stalin too?

And just to pick on Pinochet he was a murderous thug but compared with all others he was probably the only dictator that didnt destroyed his contry.
If ones want to criticise it's better to talk about Argentina Junta much more murderous and incompetent.

“And just to pick on Pinochet he was a murderous thug but compared with all others he was probably the only dictator that didnt destroyed his contry.”

"Is Hitchens criticizing Roosevelt help to Stalin too?"

Pinochet probably saved his country from ruin. Was he truly a murderous thug---or somebody who preferred to look the other way? In hind sight, our government should have put more pressure on the Chilean government. Still, that country was in a fight to the death with totalitarianism. We didn’t need another Fidel Castro in the region. And yes, Christopher Hitchens is being logically inconsistent. When is the last time he rebuked the Roosevelt administration for its close relationship with “Uncle Joe?”

Just skimmed the comments, so pardon me if this point has already been made, but:

All you defending Kissinger because he was "fighting Communism" is say great, fine, that's a wonderful thing to fight. But there are right ways to fight and wrong ways to fight, and HK had an illustrious and illuminating history of fighting Communism the wrong way.

Or, in other words:

Complicity in Latin American fascism can only be fairly analyzed if you view it as an alternative to complicity in Latin American Communism.

That's called a false dichotomy. Don't fall for it.

Epitome,

Are you implying that it was impossible for the U.S. to take an anti-communist stance without allying with and in some cases training and supporting murderers and despots?

Impossible? No.

Whether it would have been effective in light of the perceived encroachment of Communism in the Western hemisphere? I don't know.

But Cuba has been a Communist disaster for several decades now, and Chile is not a fascist dictatorship.

would you be willing to concede in any way, whether it be Greece, Nicaragua or Chile, that the cure was as bad or sometimes worse than the disease?

I believe I have - and the theme throughout my post is that it's a matter of degrees (i.e. "the lesser of two evils"), where "anti-Communism" ended up often being the deciding factor when deciding whom to back.

Do you endorse such realpolitik manuevers now in the new American century?

It depends. Some. These maneuvers exist whether I endorse them or not. Case in point: our "good friends," the Saudis.

Especially in light of embarassing past alliances with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban?

Again, sadly, we don't have perfect choices. If I could replace the al-Saud family with the Osmond family, and have them not be assassinated, I would.

Mark Poling, I don't think anyone is feigning a false dichotomy. What was the alternative way to HK's horrible way? How should the Soviets have been stopped?

Don't kid yourselves, the reason Pinoche is/was such as cause cele'bre for the Left was because his free market reforms. It had nothing to do with the "wrong way to fight communism." If his death squads and oppression had been in service of spreading socialism he would be considered a Leftist hero today (such as Arafat and Castro).

Reading the piece I don't see anything that wasn't already said in the 1970s. I suspect this is just an attempt at keeping his "street cred" by bringing back this ancient meme. If the "rightwing cheering section" is silent about this, I bet it is because this argument was beaten to death years ago.

Dean Esmay: I do understand where you're coming from here, and I partly agree with you. Understand, though, that you don't have to be an anti-American leftist or an anti-anti-communist to wish Kissinger had done something different. See Niall Ferguson.

Rightwinger,

Generalizations are easy, analysis is hard. I consider myself a person of the left, though not far left. I find Castro repellent and Pinochet repellent. The greatest economic successes in Chile have happened post-Pinochet with a center-left coalition. The current president, who Latin Trade magazine named Free Trader of the year a couple of years ago, was in Allende's government, a fierce opponent of Pinochet and is a member of the socialist party.

Pinochet was power-hungry and greedy. He has managed to squirell away bank accounts totaling nearly ten million dollars in the US on a general's salary of about US$10,000.

Pinochet's secret police also committed this act of state-sponsored terrorism in our nation's capital that killed a US citizen and a Chilean exile.

I have no use for violent, human rights abusing revolutionaries of either political stripe. If it makes you feel good to make generalizations, who am I to stop you. There are plenty of examples to disprove your generalizations.

"Pinochet probably saved his country from ruin."

In the sense you kill something in order to save it, absolutely. Knowing what we know about socialism, even the democratic elected kind, you could expect that Chile could expect unfathomable inflation and a severely moribunded economy. But despite predictions about what might have happened and what was happening, murder, subversion, state sanctioned torture and 'disappearances' certainly weren't happening.

"Was he truly a murderous thug---or somebody who preferred to look the other way?"

Judging from the books I've read on the subject, he seemed to play a much more active role in the torture, suppression, murder and 'disappearances' than your apologia for the man would suggest. Not to imply that I don't have any problems with the 'preferred to look the other way' excuse as the morally contemptable and ethically lax defense it is.

"In hind sight, our government should have put more pressure on the Chilean government. Still, that country was in a fight to the death with totalitarianism. We didn’t need another Fidel Castro in the region."

Fidel Castro wasn't democratically elected, nor does be have the potential to be democratically removed under the current cuban system. Never mind all that, I don't want to defend Allende the man since he was hardly the marxist saint the apologist left makes him out to be. But if the issue was to put a stop to a government that would have resulted in substantial breakdowns of civil rights, inexcusable abuses of state power, nepotism, murder, torture and political disappearances, it didn't do much good to launch a coup and implement/support a government that resulted in substantial breakdowns of civil rights, inexcusable abuses of state power, nepotism, murder, torture and political disappearances.

"And yes, Christopher Hitchens is being logically inconsistent. When is the last time he rebuked the Roosevelt administration for its close relationship with “Uncle Joe?”

I'm not sure what Hitchens' view of the alliance with the soviet union is. What is your view of the pact with 'Uncle Joe'?

Jim, once you've got a pawn in a local chess game elevated to a queen, a moral actor doesn't just let the damn thing rampage over the board. For far too many years, across far too many Administrations, we were happy to let "Our Bastards" do what they liked.

Curbing them would have required money, involvement with various oposition groups (even as we supported "our bastards" officialy), and the willingness to pull far more Noriegas than we actually did. In other words, long term involvement in the affairs of our "regional allies."

Note that this is not at all a Conservative approach, and not at all a "Give Peace a Chance" approach, but I think it would have been the right approach. And I'm not buying this as simple 20/20 hindsight. The people making decisions over the years knew what the options were, and consistently chose the easiest and/or cheapest solution; morality and human decency seldom had anything to do with it.

9/11 shows that wasn't good policy; there's more than enough blame for root causes to go around, and Kissinger, IMHO, deserves a healthy portion of that nasty pie.

BTW, and probably off-topic, I'm starting to think anybody who actually wins a Nobel Peace Prize should immediately be given the baby seal treatment. Has there been any more consistent correlation between an individual and his propensity to screw up the world in the past 30 years? I'd really like to know.

Mr. Paul: I don't dissagree with your points regarding Pinoche. We all can agree he was a very bad man. But it is still clear that the collective sentiments of his Leftist critics is/was mostly outrage against his free market reforms.

The "outrage" against his dictatorship and oppression was mostly "selective outrage" by same folks that turned a blind eye to same actions of Leftist regimes.

Most also fail to mention Allende was also a scumbag. Both were illiberal gangsters, Pinoche was just quicker on the trigger.

At any rate, it is possible to hail Pinoche's market reforms and anti-communism and not support his death-squads or terrorism. I suspect that is what most "right-wingers" do, and for this they are demonized. But I suppose this is just generalizing.

“But despite predictions about what might have happened”

There is ample evidence that Allende had to no interest in relinquishing power. It is argued that a coup by his people was imminent. Pinochet merely beat him to the punch. I rather we played it safe than sorry.

“I'm not sure what Hitchens' view of the alliance with the soviet union is. What is your view of the pact with 'Uncle Joe'?”

Are you suggesting that Christopher Hitchens is making a fool of himself? It is absurd to criticize Pinochet while ignoring FDR’s working relationship with Stalin. I’m adamantly believe, though, that we had to shake hands with the devil during W.W.II.

Mark, very well said. Shall we say, then, that the initial policy of using bastards was not wrong, but the failure to reign them in was? In other words, the defense of Kissinger shouldn't draw the false dichotomy, and by the same token, the criticism of Kissinger should not confuse his grave sin of failing to reign in the bastards with the notion that there was an alternative to using the bastards. Does that sound right?

Rightwinger: Most also fail to mention Allende was also a scumbag. Both were illiberal gangsters, Pinoche was just quicker on the trigger.

Could you give us an example of something that would lend credence to the "Allende was also a scumbag" argument?

A good place to start is "The Allende Myth" by Val E-diction:

val.dorta.com/archives/000343.html

"Mr. Paul: I don't dissagree with your points regarding Pinoche. We all can agree he was a very bad man. But it is still clear that the collective sentiments of his Leftist critics is/was mostly outrage against his free market reforms."

Very well then. If the 'true' reason the left has such a fixation over the brutal despotism of Pinochet is really because of his free-market reforms, then I can find no other reason, excepting such perverse political tribalism, of why the 'right' takes it upon themselves to be his personal apologists and to defend his honor.

This rhetoric of "Yah Pinochet was a bad guy, but he did do good things for the Chilean economy!" smacks quite familiarily of the same tired rhetoric of the apologist left that reluctantly admits that Fidel Castro is kinda, sorta an insult to all that is humane and just, but he did create free health-care and boy can those poor cuban kids read good!

What constitutes the 'right' has had a much better record of opposing anti-despotism than the unfortunate left has in the last century. The only thing that taints that is the 'right's seeming need to defend tyrants and despots, for no other reason than they share similiar opinions on how to run an economy. Let's stop the political posturing and call a spade a spade.

Whatever Hitchens may be, he is never short of opinion and never loath to express it in print. That he is a hard drinker is merely an observation, not a judgement. In the 30s and 40s, if you weren't a hard drinker, nobody would listen to you (in the halls of journalism).

And one of the things he is, is a good writer.

He's lambasted just about everybody, including Mother Teresa.

Just because he's see the light and put the Left behind him, we shouldn't say that everything he writes is great gospel.

Like all of us, he's right sometimes and wrong sometimes. He's no more immune to fisking than anyone else.

But I'd think twice before trying that on him in person.

Mostly irritating is his penchant for knowing Everyone. (" the late Robert Hill. I have good reason to remember Mr. Hill...", " possess a photograph of myself, from December of 1977, shaking the hand of General Jorge Rafaél Videla..." (from that piece alone). He seems to be the proverbial fly on the wall, on every wall, everywhere.

Epitome: It might be because the "right" sees free market reforms as at least a step toward liberalization, while they see Cuba's "free" heathcare and other socialist policies as anti-liberal and despotic. Do you see the distinction?

"There is ample evidence that Allende had to no interest in relinquishing power. It is argued that a coup by his people was imminent. Pinochet merely beat him to the punch. I rather we played it safe than sorry."

If the chilean people had democratically elected Allende out of office (and since the other 2 major parties had allied it was quite possible) and he had refused to relinquish power, this argument may have some teeth. Otherwise speculative evidence doesen't amount to much. And considering how the government was run post-Allende, I'd hardly consider it playing it safe.

"Are you suggesting that Christopher Hitchens is making a fool of himself?"

? I don't follow what you're asking.

"It is absurd to criticize Pinochet while ignoring FDR’s working relationship with Stalin."

Again, did Hitchens say something that led you to believe he approves of the American-Soviet pact of WW2?

“This rhetoric of "Yah Pinochet was a bad guy, but he did do good things for the Chilean economy!" smacks quite familiarily of the same tired rhetoric of the apologist left that reluctantly admits that Fidel Castro is kinda, sorta an insult to all that is humane and just, but he did create free health-care and boy can those poor cuban kids read good!”

You are slipping into moral relativism. Life is often a matter of choosing the lesser of evils. We are the good guys---and Fidel Castro and the other Communists are the bad guys? Got it?

One more time, what has Christopher Hitchens said regarding our relationship with “Uncle Joe?” His position regarding Pinochet is ludicrous if he ignores our necessary involvement with the Soviet Union during W.W.II.

Jim, fair enough; maybe using bastards was unavoidable (hard to say, and here hindsight is less-than-useful) but we could have and should have at least tried to stay on top of them.

Sins of omission count too.

“Otherwise speculative evidence doesen't amount to much. And considering how the government was run post-Allende, I'd hardly consider it playing it safe.”

Chile did not fall to the Communists. That’s enough for me. When in doubt, act fast. Too much was at stake.

“Again, did Hitchens say something that led you to believe he approves of the American-Soviet pact of WW2?”

Screw this, I’m going to e-mail Christopher Hitchens right now!

"Epitome: It might be because the "right" sees free market reforms as at least a step toward liberalization, while they see Cuba's "free" heathcare and other socialist policies as anti-liberal and despotic. Do you see the distinction?"

I see, just like the 'left' sees socialized medicine and mass nationalization of industry as being progressive and putting power in the hands of the people and views free market capital as something allegedly oppressive and criminal?

Like I said, political tribalism. A tyrant is a tyrant, whether he's a monetarist or not.

Actually David, Epitome is saying that both Left and Right see the ends justifying the means. The Left sees oppression leading to socialism as well and good. The Right sees oppression leading to capitalism as well and good. There is some merit to this argument.

But if that's the case, and if the ends of socialism are continued oppression while the ends of capitalism are expanded freedom and liberalization, then it would appear (in Pinoche's case) that the ends did justify the means -- if you believe in greater reedom and liberalization.

But maybe I read his point wrong.

"You are slipping into moral relativism. Life is often a matter of choosing the lesser of evils. We are the good guys---and Fidel Castro and the other Communists are the bad guys? Got it?"

It actually has more to do with moral absolutism and anti-moral relativism. That relativism, which seems to infect both the left and the right, which affects their ability to condemn despots depending on what their economic policies are too.

Yes Fidel Castro and other Commies are bad guys. So was Augusto Pinochet.

"Screw this, I’m going to e-mail Christopher Hitchens right now!"

Ask him for a signed copy of 'A long short war' for me please.

I was looking for something along the lines of "he ate live children" or something. Do you have a summary?

I agree the "left" may see it that way, but I and most "right wingers" would disagree with their assessment. Hence the conflict.

And one can disagree with a regime's despotic policies while supporting its monetarist policies. My main argument with the "left" is its conflating of the two.

“Like I said, political tribalism. A tyrant is a tyrant, whether he's a monetarist or not”

Sorry, I’m not buying this argument. Three cheers for political tribalism? No, but I will give it two. Our bastard is always a nicer bastard than one which is aligned with the totalitarians. The lesser of evils must underpin our foreign policy. We should, though, push for democratic values as much as possible.

I just e-mailed Christopher Hitchens via his website. Will he reply? Shucks, we will eventually find out. Thankfully, I live in Texas so that Hitchens is unable to punch me in the nose.

"Yes Fidel Castro and other Commies are bad guys. So was Augusto Pinochet."

Epitome: This IS moral relativism, because it was clear that Castro and the communists were WORSE.

David Thomson,

Sometimes we have to make deals with the Devil. This is true. But that does not mean it's always right to do so.

Knowing when we should and when we shouldn't is hard work. Saying it's always right or always wrong is cheap and easy.

My default position is that it's wrong. But I can be talked out of it on a case by case basis, depending on the circumstances. And when we do make deals with the Devil, we should be very very careful about what kind of deals we make. This is not something we ought to be blase about. If you think aligning ourselves with Argentine Fascism was the right call, it behooves you to read Hitchens' piece slowly and carefully so you know the price paid for that decision.

Maybe Argentina would have been worse off if we hadn't done it. But I doubt Argentina would have been worse off if someone other than Kissinger had done it. I hope this isn't too nuanced for you.

'Actually David, Epitome is saying that both Left and Right see the ends justifying the means. The Left sees oppression leading to socialism as well and good. The Right sees oppression leading to capitalism as well and good. There is some merit to this argument.'

I'm not quite that deep, I just don't like dictators.

'But if that's the case, and if the ends of socialism are continued oppression while the ends of capitalism are expanded freedom and liberalization, then it would appear (in Pinoche's case) that the ends did justify the means -- if you believe in greater reedom and liberalization.'

Not exactly. Marxism is obviously inherently totalitarian, there's just no escaping it. And as any Hayekian would tell you, free markets and liberal democracy are the key to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Agreed on all fronts.

My objections aren't to the reforms, they are to the man. This argument presumes that Pinochet had to be a tyrant and criminal to achieve the ends of economic reform. Other figures, authoritarian and not, have gone on to head previously socialist states and achieved economic reform without huge abuses of state power, torture and several thousand dead. and these are countries much less dovish than Chile.

Pinochet is a despot and a criminal, who happened to have economic policies mor in line with Margaret Thatcher than Fidel Castro.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

True Kissenger made some bad calls, but calling HIM the Devil is just as stupid. .

“Maybe Argentina would have been worse off if we hadn't done it. But I doubt Argentina would have been worse off if someone other than Kissinger had done it. I hope this isn't too nuanced for you.”

Not at all. We even seem to share the same general principles. The situation is Chile was a judgment call. Perhaps it should have been decided by a coin flip? I still say that it was better to be safe than sorry. Only the gods know for sure, and I don’t pretend to possess such infinite wisdom.

"cheap and easy"

Had I been advising President Reagan, I would have reluctantly, after much deliberation, agreed to getting rid of Allende. There would have been nothing flippant about the decision. Also, if not Kissinger, then who?

Well I agree with you that is a false assumption. However, I think most people supported the reforms and not the man. It is like praising a convicted rapist for donating all his possessions to charity. One obviously is against rape, but still supports the good deed.

The truth is that the US couldn't have prevented the coup even if it had wanted too. The only "support" the US gave was in not propping up Allende's failing regime. This non-action was condemned by communists and their leftist supporters.

The "support" of the US "right" was in praising and helping Pinnoche's free market reforms. As I said, this is the same as supporting a criminal doing a good deed and not supporting the crime.

But for the left, it was the good deed itself, along with US not propping up Allende and his socialist, pro-Soviet polices, that they despised and what fueled the "Allende Myth."

Both Allende and Pinnoche were gangsters. Pinoche was just better at it. And he did make some reforms that eventually led to a more liberal Chile.

Complicity in Latin American fascism can only be fairly analyzed if you view it as an alternative to complicity in Latin American Communism.

Unsurprisingly, our little Troskyite fails to do this in either his article or in The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

As David mentioned, this is so last week that I am somewhat surprised that our host could find anything of interest in it.

It is important to remember that Hitchens, for all his versatility and brilliance, has never been one whose judgement can be trusted in matters regarding either politics or morality. That he has, for completely selfish and egotistical reasons, found himself on the right side of Iraq does not earn him a pass from those of us who watched him collaborate with and enable the likes of Noam Chomsky and Edward Said for over a decade.

Kissinger remains Hitchens' Professor Moriarty simply because he will not or can not allow himself the personal risk of re-examining his own convictions and actions for error. Like Moriarty, Kissinger [in Hitchens' world] is always there at the critical juncture, always possessing the winning card, and always playing the perfect hand. Whatever. In more prosiac minds, it was simply a matter of U.S. Administrations doing what needed to be done to protect the nation, its citizenry and its interests. Sort of a 1970s version of invading Iraq...

So when we read this:

Complicity in Latin American fascism can only be fairly analyzed if you view it as an alternative to complicity in Latin American Communism.

What we see is Hitchens' being completely consistent with his past...there is no moral equivalence between fascism and communism in Hitchens' eyes. Communism, for him, remains the better choice...the lesser of two evils, except for him Communism isn't an evil. But again, for those of us less brilliant, we see little difference between Allende's vision of a totalitarian communist dictatorship and Pinochet's vision of a totalitarian fascist dictatorship. Other than the fact that if we are to choose between one and the other we do so on the basis of our national interests. Iraq again?

To the extent that Hitchens and people like Marc Cooper want to run around waving the bloody shirt of Allende, fine. Everyone needs a hobby. But if either of them (or you, Michael), really think this has anything to do with anything, you are sadly mistaken. You can draw a lot of conclusions from the results of our recent elections...including the conclusion that a majority of the citizenry are not really in the mood for Carteresqe self-flagellation. Pursue this bit of triviality to the extent you feel compelled to do so, but do so with the understanding that it really does little more than paint you in a rather silly light.

But it is still clear that the collective sentiments of his Leftist critics is/was mostly outrage against his free market reforms.

Proof?

I could care less about his economic policies. What bothered me and virtually everyone on my side of the political spectrum who I know wwere the three thousand + disappered and the 35,000 tortured.

If Pinochet was such a good free market icon, why did he not privatize CODELCO?

There is ample evidence that Allende had to no interest in relinquishing power. It is argued that a coup by his people was imminent. Pinochet merely beat him to the punch. I rather we played it safe than sorry.

Consider this from The Economist:

For further evidence, go to a source of the time: The Economist, non-Chilean but firmly critical of Allende and what its then Chile specialist was later to entitle his savagely critical book, “Chile’s Marxist Experiment”. That title was in fact overblown. Allende’s economics were, approximately, Marxist and certainly disastrous. Not so the political system he ran. The opposition press and parties carried on. So did elections, and even in March 1973 the regime could win only 44% of the vote for Congress.

Congress was dissolved under Pinochet. The opposition press was censored under Pinochet. Elections were not held regularly under Pinochet.

Say what one will about Allende, but there was an opposition allowed to exist that under Pinochet was threatened, harassed, tortured and murdered.

As Marc Cooper, who lived in Chile during the time said in comments on my blog:

It is absolutely true that inflation was running at well more thaqn 300% and there was a good deal of economic chaos. One can debate the reasons why-- I would say both sides shared responsibilities. But even if one ascribes the economic disorder 100% to Allende, what we do in the civilzed world is vote out administreations like that. We don't turn children into orphans because there's a toilet paper shortage.

Indeed.

Mr. Paul: Nobody here doubts that Pinnoche was a monster. What we dispute is your high horse. Please get off it.

Allende was also a scumbag and was planning on taking power. Why not just admit why is is your chosen cause celebre in a world where 50% of the planet was under communist jackboots?

And Pinnoche wasn't a "free market icon" - he was just better in that area than other gangster-dictators.

You know where I come from when one makes a claim, one supplies proof to verify that claim. When those with whom you are attempting to argue don't have the proof and engage in ad hominem attacks on you, well that speaks volumes.

Let me know when you grow up and dispute my argument on its merits.

As long as we're discussing the side of Hitchens that still provokes his new conservative fans, I would be more interested in what those fans think of his just-posted article about Arafat:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109860/

Here is a hint: My disagreement with your argument is NOT ad hominem. Calling someone a child is.

But maybe it is different from where you come from.

I think it is what should expect from a man who is a fan of a genocidal maniac named Leon Trotsky.

But then again, I am not a fan of Hitch.

Saying my recitation of facts is my being on a "high horse" is ad hominem.

You're right about my child reference and I was wrong to make that comment. I learned as a child to supply proof to back up my claims. Mere contradiction isn't proof. Maybe that's different where you come from.

OK, maybe you could read it that way. I was aiming at your arguments, which seem to reinforce the "selective outrage" I mentioned above.

Then you make another ad hominem claim I am a child for not "backing up my claims" - right after you admitted you were wrong to do just that the first time. You are hopeless. Have a great day.

No, I said I was wrong to make that claim. I apologize for it. Get over yourself.

You're bufuddled again, Markus.

Christopher Hitchens has no conservative fans, and in all likelihood never will. Hitchens represents nothing more than a 'useful fool' (for want of a different term you would understand) in the battle against Islamofascism. To the extent that he diverts and angers fools such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, he is tolerated...and only tolerated. To the extent he wanders back into the Trotskyite wasteland that is his life's legacy, he is ignored.

I would also note that given just how old this particular hobbyhorse is, one cannot escape the idea that Hitch is simply trying a little post-election bad-assing to re-establish his lefty street creds with the homies. So that puts him in the exalted company of another ball-less Brit, Andrew Sullivan. Now there's a pantheon any conservative could go ga-ga for...

Markus,

I'm not a conservative, but I certainly like the title of Hitchens' Arafat piece.

And he admits: But has any national movement ever been so appallingly led?

Nope.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

“And he admits: But has any national movement ever been so appallingly led?”

Yasser Arafat was never a nationalist. He was a nihilist. The last thing he ever desired was a Palestinain state where the citizens would lead oridinary lives. Worrying about drain systems, the paint to be used on a school house, where to place the road signs, bored Arafat. This man was existentially committed solely to violence. Death and destruction were the only things which made Arafat’s life worth living.

There was only one war between 1945 and 1989 and it was the cold war. As it turns out, it was'nt that cold after all.

Dennis -- thanks for clearing that up for me. I also hope you like my post about Judaism earlier in this thread.

Here's something I've been wondering about Hitchens: Doesn't his tolerance, if not approval, of our alliance with Musharraf seem odd?

I'm not comparing Musharraf (who from what little I know seems a relatively benign despot more than a vicious tyrant) to Pinochet or the Argentine junta (about whom I have no kind words). But imagine that he were much, much nastier than he is: that knowing we damned well need him, he decided he should use that to his advantage, enriching himself and stomping hard on dissidents, ordering or condoning vicious tortures at home but remaining a key ally against al Qaeda.

At that point we'd have a choice: Grit our teeth and support the bastard, because without him we could lose the war against a very great and very virulent evil; or, pull the rug out from under him, in which case the ISI selects a very al Qaeda-friendly replacement. Right now, there is no third alternative; nurturing one would take years we don't have, and might not work anyway.

Quick, now, all who agree with Hitch that Kissinger deserves trial for war crimes: What do you do?

I don't think it's a no-brainer, but I'll guess that, up to a very high threshold, most of us would support him as the lesser of two evils. With sorrow, with a heavy heart, but we'd do it.

P.S.: When I refer to losing the war [against al Qaeda], I don't mean that we find ourselves adopting Sharia law; rather, that we fail to win before suffering an attack so destructive that it, and our response, is too horrible to contemplate. The parallel to the Cold War is here a poor one, but remember: for most of the Cold War, we didn't know if we'd win, and some smart people thought we'd lose in the end.

Whether Hitchens is fixated on HK or Mother Theresa is not the key question, and neither is the question of why various leftists opposed Pinochet and romanticized Allende (as an aside, an amusing moment for me was at a dinner with a Chilean guest at the home of a faculty colleague where the American host tried to commisserate with the Chilean about how terrible it must have been under Pinochet without naming him...her English not being great, she replied with thanks and yes, things were really awful under Allende. Shocked awkward silence followed...life is complicated).

The substantive question for me in Hitchens' article, which seems to have been ignored by many of the commenters, is whether Kissinger went beyond just working with the junta to encouraging it to increase its barbarism. If the stories about Hill's admonitions to the Argentines being overridden by Kissenger are true, then this is a different kettle of fish, IMHO.

Reality in the Cold War, as in the GWOT, means that we need to work sometimes with regimes whose domestic activities are unsavory (to put it mildly) to us. But if Hitch is accurate, Hill was not suggesting that we withdraw support from the junta...he was just suggesting that relatively indiscriminate murder was not an effective way to realize the common goals of the Argentines and the US. It is not unreasonable to expect our former Secretary of State to have behaved with the same decency as the Marines in Fallujah described at the end of this post at Belmont Club

Randy, I believe the Left is strongly against the Bush tax cuts; and the "amorality" of capitalism and the free market. I, too, am enraged when the rich and powerful in some country can violate property rights and not fulfill contracts with poor folk, usually with no negative consequences. Is the fault with "capitalism", or with bad property rights and contract enforcement?

But there is a destructive envy that so often drives the Left. See Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate This envy usually includes an Unreal Perfection as the unspoken alternative, compared to any real situation looks bad.

It's pretty hard to condemn the general policy of allying with the lesser Devil, unless one accepts the USA made a mistake in allying with Stalin. Neither Pinochet nor the Shah of Iran was in the same league -- though the Left's criticism is at least an order of magnitude greater than their criticism of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.

Allende seems likely to have been ready to keep power, despite Marc Coopers' personal knowledge of different intentions. Pinochet seems a "lesser evil" -- who could have chosen to be like the dictator of Singapore, but chose to be worse.

For Dems & Liberals, this would be a good time to start developing a useful ranking of dictatorship critiques, including criteria on why which one is so terrible. Even rankings, like an inverse Freedom House. Honest discussion about the terms of the Deals with Devils should be the goal of moderates -- most Reps would prolly be happy to join in. Because Kissinger's friends look bad, but not nearly as bad as Mr. K's enemies.

And of current regimes, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia; and North Korea, all come to mind immediately, though Zimbabwe (& the Leftist Mugabe) is terrible, as is the mess in the Congo -- and even the frog problems in Ivory Coast. (Though racist Leftists don't seem to think that blacks in Africa can really handle both Democracy and Human Rights, nor cricitism of there lacking.)

David Thomson
"Had I been advising President Reagan, I would have reluctantly, after much deliberation, agreed to getting rid of Allende. There would have been nothing flippant about the decision. Also, if not Kissinger, then who?"

Were there any alternatives to Pinochet in Chile at the time? Hopefully someone who might have been a bit less willing accept murder as a reasonable response to policy disagreements.

The wine urges me on, the bewitching wine, which sets even a wise man to singing and to laughing gently and rouses him up to dance and brings forth words wh

[Water is] the only drink for a wise man. Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862)

[Water is] the only drink for a wise man. Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862)

And malt does more than Milton can To justify God's ways to man. A. E. Housman (1859 - 1936)

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. Unknown

Steele's Plagiarism of Somebody's Philosophy:
Everybody should believe in something -- I believe I'll have
another drink.
Loan http://www.epaycash.com

The world is coming to an end ... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!!!
Payday Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has
changed.
-- Irene Peter
Payday Loans http://www.paylesspaydayloans.com

Check out The 100 Best Poker Rooms, Sports Books, and Casinos for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

Also check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick

Kamery cyfrowe Kasety do kamer Aparaty cyfrowe Magnetowidy video Magnetowidy cyfrowe Wieże hi-fi
Radiomagnetofony Amplitunery Wzmacniacze Odtwarzacze cd
Odtwarzacze minidisc Kolumny i gło¶niki Zestawy kolumn Subwoofery
Odtwarzacze mp3 Dyktafony
Car audio Karty pamięci Pralki Pralki górnoładowne
Pralko-suszarki Lodówki Zmywarki Kuchenki mikrofalowe
Kuchnie gazowe Kuchnie elektryczne Okapy kuchenne Zamrażarki skrzyniowe
Zamrażarki szufladkowe Odkurzacze Roboty Expresy do kawy
Pralki Kuchnie Piekarniki Zmywarki
Lodówki Kuchenki mikrofalowe Płyty gazowe Płyty elektryczne

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

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

Telewizory Plazmowe Kamery Cyfrowe Kino Domowe Telewizory Plazmowe Telewizory Lcd Kuchnie Piekarniki Lodówki Pralki Zmywarki Okapy Kuchenne Odtwarzacze mp3 Aparaty Cyfrowe DMC FZ5

online casino

18 latki ruchanie podwojnie @ 18 latki ruchanie przerosniete @ 18 latki ruchanie przystojne @ 18 latki ruchanie przystojny @ 18 latki ruchanie rajstopy @ 18 latki ruchanie rozjebane @ 18 latki ruchanie siksy @ 18 latki ruchanie szybko @ 18 latki ruchanie w 2 osoby @ 18 latki ruchanie w cipe @ 18 latki ruchanie w cipke @ 18 latki ruchanie w dupe @ 18 latki ruchanie w dziurke @ 18 latki ruchanie w kakao @ 18 latki ruchanie w pupe @ 18 latki ruchanie w szparke @ 18 latki ruchanie we dwoje @ 18 latki ruchanie wyrosniete @ 18 latki ruchanie za forse @ 18 latki ruchanie za kase @ 18 latki ruchanie za pieniadze @ 18 latki ruchanie zgabnie @ 18 latki ruchanie zgrabne @ 18 latki sex @ 18 latki sex 2 pary @ 18 latki sex 2pary @ 18 latki sex brutalnie @ 18 latki sex cycate @ 18 latki sex darmo @ 18 latki sex doswiadczone @ 18 latki sex fetysz @ 18 latki sex fetyszystki @ 18 latki sex forsa @ 18 latki sex free @ 18 latki sex grupowo @ 18 latki sex latwo @ 18 latki sex lesbijki @ 18 latki sex lesby @ 18 latki sex lezbijki @ 18 latki sex lezby @ 18 latki sex na zywo @ 18 latki sex nietrzezwe @ 18 latki sex niewolnice sexualne @ 18 latki sex od tylu @ 18 latki sex odurzone @ 18 latki sex ostro @ 18 latki sex ostry @ 18 latki sex pieniadze @ 18 latki sex pijane @ 18 latki sex pizda

Greetings From NY !

pulpit wegierka @ panienki life @ orgia ogolona @ liwe warga @ teen macica @ seksowne opowiadania blondynki @ teen cipki @ srac donata @ suczki mizianie @ do pobrania siostry @ roku studentka @ zasponsoruje pana przygoda @ sztucznie niemka @ panienka liwe @ spermy dziwki @ rozebralismy lezbijka @ od srodka gazeta @ pulpit demon sexu @ plaza lodziara @ amerykanka ssanie @ cipa na kutasie nago @ mulatka perwersyjnie @ szmata oralnie @ cipulka lizanie @ siusiu lezba @ ciasna dziewica @ dziwa sztuczna @ wydymana orgia @ kurestwo foka @ fotomodelki perwersyjnie @ lesbijka buzi @ foki download @ ponczochy lezbijki @ twoich mazen poza @ teen cnotka @ wargi sromowe namietnie @ amerykanka cudowna @ doprowadzac do orgazmu rura @ szczelina dlugie nogi @ foki striptease @ kurwy szpary smak @ kamery smak @ oral lesba @ cycata cipeczka @ perwersyjnie ciotka @ sexowna lara croft @ wielka japonka @ sexi szpara @ amerykanka oral @ wargi sromowe pulpit

Phentermine

Phentermine Information

Order Phentermine

Buy Phentermine

Cheap Phentermine

Online Phentermine Information

viagra
cialis
levitra
meridia
xenical
propecia

psf
mieszkania Warszawa
ogłoszenia nieruchomości
web design
tworzenie stron
strony internetowe
jkcollected
nauka angielskiego
kurs angielskiego
soczewki kontaktowe
psychoterapia
agroturystyka Mazury
nieruchomości Warszawa
psycholog Warszawa
reklama w internecie
zdrowa żywność
op cat
nls
f-a
usługi hydrauliczne
hydraulik Warszawa

kosmetyki naturalne
kosmetyki
mieszkania w Warszawie
agencja reklamowa

freetimes
jidds
fabrykapoe
sfworks

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

压力开关
压力变送器
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
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪

过滤器
强磁水处理器
自清洗过滤器
自动反冲洗过滤器

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

网站优化
Printer parts

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
陈楚生

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
rolex replica
rolex replica
World of Warcraft Gold
rolex
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wrath of the Lich King
wrath of the Lich King
翻译公司
机票
性病
尖锐湿疣
搬家公司
搬家公司
展览公司
中高年　転職
転職
派遣会社
アルバイト　求人情報
人材派遣
パチンコ　攻略
ダイエット
合宿免許
おなら
フランス語
婚約指輪
競馬
ブライダル
競馬　予想
お見合い
窃听器
窃听器
手机窃听器
手机窃听器
ups电源

rolex replica
beijing hotel
beijing hotel
china tour
china tour
great wall
great wall
beijing travel
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
代孕
试管婴儿

婚庆
婚庆公司
北京婚庆
北京婚庆公司
商务网
保洁公司
塑钢门窗
心脏病
试管婴儿
试管婴儿
捐卵
捐卵
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling

圣诞树卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视安装卫星电视安装卫星电视卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视网站建设google优化Google左侧优化google排名Google左侧排名GOOGE左侧优化排名 上海google优化google优化排名上海google左侧排名上海google排名上海google左侧优化google优化Google左侧优化短信群发短信群发器短信群发群发短信短信群发器小灵通群发器小灵通短信群发器短信群发软件手机短信群发软件短信群发设备手机短信群发设备手机短信群发器网站建设网站设计网站制作美女图片美女写真性感美女制服美腿西洋美女走光偷拍网友自拍卫星电视上海卫星电视卫星电视安装安装卫星电视包装印刷上海包装印刷免费电影免费下载电影免费在线电影上海印刷上海包装弯管弯管上海hp笔记本维修上海惠普笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修上海DELL笔记本维修上海联想笔记本维修上海东芝笔记本维修上海acer笔记本维修上海华硕笔记本维修上海索尼笔记本维修上海sony笔记本维修上海hp笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修弯管 弯管加工 路灯节能路灯监控 合同能源管理google优化google左侧优化google排名google左侧排名

runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape2store.com">runescape gold wow power leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">Warcraft PowerLeveling buy

runescape gold buy runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape items <a href="http://www.runescapemoney-

runescapegold.cn">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-runescape-accounts-c-599_988.html">runescape accounts <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape gp <a href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com/dofus-c-

1054.html">dofus kamas buy dofus kamas <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c-389.html">Guild Wars Gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c

-389.html">buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buylotrogold.org">buy lotro gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buy-lotro-gold.cn">buy lotro gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/lord-rings-onlineus-c-

975.html">lotro gold buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.800millions.com">runescape money runescape power leveling <a

href="http://www.runescape2vip.cn">runescape money runescape gold <a

href="http://www.buydofuskamas.com">dofus kamas cheap runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape4money.net">cheap runescape gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/hellgate-london-c-

1102.html">Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London

Palladium Hellgate money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">tabula rasa money lotro gold

buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credit <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold

Hellgate London gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/dofus-c-891.html">dofus kamas buy

dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 <a

href=http://www.nncbroadway.com>音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码

电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 <a

href=http://www.innhot.com/7daysinn>7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 <a

href=http://www.filt.cn>自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>液位计 液位开关 温湿度#