The only real question about the planned "surge" in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07
There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. -- NYT Editorial, 1/11/07
What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07
Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. -- Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07
W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07
The senator supported a war that didn't need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won't work. -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07
Now the ''surge'' that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr's militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq's army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07
Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. -- NYT Editorial, 3/29/07
There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. -- NYT Editorial, 4/12/07
... the empty hope of the "surge" ... -- Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07
Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out. -- NYT Editorial, 5/11/07
Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. -- Maureen Down, NYT, 5/27/07
Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. -- NYT Editorial, 7/25/07
The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 9/14/07
U.S. Hands Off Pacified Anbar, Once Heart of Iraq Insurgency. -- NYT, 9/1/08
This reminds me of the views of the pundits on Reagan's challenging the Soviet Block and thinking its days were numbered.
The totality of the evidence suggests that the troop surge played an important part in the improvement in the security situation in Iraq.
Having said that, is it really fair to attribute 100% of our (Iraq's?) successes to the surge? Is is plausible that a roughly 15% increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq brought about a profound change, from chaos to stability?
I would suggest that a more thorough explanation is in order.
We will not have won the Iraq War until 4-5 years after the last U.S. soldier leaves the last combat zone (possibly remaining in in-country bases). If at that point Iraq is peaceful and pro-West, we'll have at least broken even. By that time we'll also know if it was worth the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent and will continue to spend, the economic crisis that spending exacerbated, and the deaths and maimings of U.S. and Iraqi people.
At that point, it may be clear that we indeed won, or that we'd have been better off leaving Saddam alone. If we don't reach that point, then it will be clear that we lost.
What I am suggesting is this: I am no military strategist. Neither are 99.9% of the people who attribute a fundamental change in Iraq to the troop surge.
I am suggesting that those who refer to "the surge" usually refer to it in terms of raw numbers: 20,000 additional troops, etc., etc. I suspect that the effectivenes of the surge is to a much greater extent a product of what those troops (the original numbers + the additional "surge" component) were actually doing in Iraq. In other words, when we use the shorthand "the surge," we should really take it to mean, "a fundamental change in our security strategy and tactics in Iraq."
And I think it has been successfull, in the way that NYC's "broken windows" policing policy under Giuliani was successfull in greatly reducing crime. Certainly increased numbers in the police force mattered, but they didn't matter as much as the fundamental change in policing strategy and tactics mattered.
Another piece of evidence: didn't the U.S troop surge coincide with a big reduction in force among British and other troops? What I haven't seen numbers on is the total "coalition of the willing" troops in Iraq, 2003 to 2008. Anyone have that handy?
while i think you are correct, i can't help but think of the michelle obama line about the ever-moving bar.
Agreed.
So what did the members with a whole brain know?
Frank Rich is one of my favorites. Ever sine he wrote the story about "Grungespeak," which, it turned out, was a complete fabrication invented by his main "source" on the topic.
No connection, really. But I'm a huge grunge fan, and this was one of my favorite stories to come out of that era. Frank, if you are listening now, you are a total lamestain, and a HUGE cob-nobbler. Harsh realm, isn't it?
No, it isn't plausible that the surge of 15% more troops by itself was responsible. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it was.
However, it was the most crucial factor, in combination with the change in tactics that General Petraeus put in place as a part of the surge. Without the surge, we wouldn't have the success in Iraq that we have. With the surge, we do.
I think you're probably right.
But someone, someday, will write a comprehensive military history of the Iraq campaign, and then maybe I'll really understand what happened. I actually think we do Petraeus a disservice when we refer to "The Surge" as a key factor, as if raw numbers caused the change. I think we saw a fundamental change in tactics, and I suspect (though I don't know) that a lot of it was done the old-fashioned way; i.e., abandoning the neo-conservative "democracy formation" notions of de-Baathification and starting from scratch, and instead securing the cooperation (through pay-offs, the promise of local control, etc.) of local clan leaders.
But the real argument against the surge was (1) that even if the surge was successful, it wasn't going to serve US interests because Iraq was never the central front in the war on terror and the most the surge was going to do was bring things from worse to bad anyway, and (2) that we needed to get out because the Bush Administration and movement conservatives favored an indefinite occupation in Iraq (and still do) and even if leaving means some chaos in Iraq, it's worth the cost in order to get our troops out of an occupation that never should have occurred in the first place.
Those arguments still hold.
Your 10:31pm post was a classic. IMHO you're the funniest poster on the VC, bar none. I live for your posts... well, I enjoy them immensely, anyway.
I'm going to be an optimist and say that "the surge" has, indeed, made the prospect of a stable Iraq 5 years from now a strong possibility.
But that "stable Iraq" will hardly resemble the foothold of democracy in the Arab world envisioned by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Co. It will, in fact, resemble the kind of stable, totalitarian regime we displaced. I hope it is a more pro-American version, but I think the dream of a Middle Eastern Belgium (o.k, bad metaphor these days) is just that: a dream.
And, of course, one may legitimately ask this: if the surge was successful, why did it take the Administration 4 years to figure out that something like the surge (in troop numbers and in tactics) was necessary? If the Administration gets credit for the success of the surge, clearly it must take blame for the lack of success of the pre-surge. Which means one side was horribly wrong in 2003-2006, the other side was horribly wrong in 2007-2008.
I fail to see any political point there, and I see no way to rationally predict what Iraq 2011 will look like.
Are the Dowd quotes fake?"
No. The quotes are real. It is Maureen Dowd who's fake.
Honestly, is this just a copy-n-paste job from one of those kooky conservative emails?
I look forward to Posner's future posts in all their ALL-CAPS glory. Sheesh
This play must have opened and shut quickly, I don't even recall who were in the leading roles, and Frank certainly is giving it a scathing review, here.
That aside,
the surge was, IMO, the intensity with which the war should have been prosecuted from the beginning, and while I'm at it, with less restrictive rules of engagement.
Many of the "Surged" troops went in as blocking forces, so that when al Qaeda, et al. were pushed out of areas, they could be funneled. And that is what ultimately ended up happening, the terrorists being pushed into smaller and smaller areas with their mobility being slowly circumscribed and then mostly eliminated.
The idea that the goal of the surge was improved security arose only after that's all it accomplished; while originally security was to be the means towards political ends that are still not in view.
Indeed, there's substantial reason to worry that the Maliki government will botch the Sunni Awakening out of sectarianism.
Once upon a time not so long ago, Iraq was going to be a pro-American, pro-Israel[!] democracy under the stewardship of the consummate con-man, Ahmad Chalabi, who was clever enough to tell the marks what they wanted to hear. Since then, the meaning of "victory" has changed quite a bit.
I don't recall security being transitioned to Iraqi forces before this point.
We can hand off all the pacified provinces we want.
The issue is whether we need to go back and re-pacify them in 3, 6, or even 12 months.
Everyone made a big hoopla about the Iraqi operation in Diyala earlier this year as well. It's great progress that they planned it largely on their own. That isn't the whole picture, though. The US Stryker Brigade responsible for Diyala at the time were who closed the deal.
The surge only worked if it fulfilled its purpose, giving the Iraqis breathing room to train and become competent. That can't be assessed until the Iraqis take over and control provinces for the next year.
I wouldn't mind just sitting on my ass when I head there next year. Because regardless of who gets elected or what may see or hear on the news, I'll be judging the success of the surge around Xmas of 2010 in Iraq.
A loose ROE doesn't equal success in a counterinsurgency.
Disciplined, trained troops with smart, empowered leaders on the ground who have been provided the manpower and tools needed win an insurgency.
The next battle is ensuring the Iraqis have the equipment, not just the manpower, they need to do the job the most advanced Army on Earth has been doing. That will be a tough sell to the American public. But think about how well the Iraqis will be able to hold onto territories when they have to have Officers clear IEDs with scissors and hand tools when we zip a specially equipped armored vehicles for the job.
From such dishonest ranks, I shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Posner deliberately omits any voices from the conservative side of the debate who voiced doubts about the surge. It's not that they didn't exist. But like other conservative pundits, Mr. Posner never lets reality interfere with a good talking point. So for those interested in a more honest spectrum, here's some conservatives who also questioned the surge:
The Perils of a Surge by George Will
Senator Norm Coleman (R) of Minnesota questioning the surge
there is work to be done, but one more time with me "there has been progress"
So Bush got lucky.
To be fair to the detractors, they had every reason to expect the "surge" to fail. Iraq was on the verge of an all-out civil war, the U.S. strategy seemed only to result in more casualties, and political progress was slow. Apparently not even the military advisors to the administration were entirely convinced it would work. But it was a last-ditch effort, and for now, it seems to have bought something of a reprieve.
I'm not sure it makes sense to make hay over it, though. Five years on, and just now something that looks like concrete success? To congratulate the administration for not mucking things up all that much worse seems a little premature.
Let's for the moment agree that the surge "worked" in some meaningful sense, i.e. "surge = success." But let's also say that, when the surge was considered and then implemented, the probability of it succeeding was only 20%. Would the fact that it did, in fact, succeed change your judgment of those who denounced it and said it was bad policy?
I'm not saying that's the answer but it's one possible theoretical answer. I always think of this in reference to the fact that the Cold War ended without thermonuclear war, though we now know that we were awful close on a number of occasions. What if the probability of escaping the Cold War without nuclear war was only 8%? Does that mean that, because we did in fact avoid nuclear war, that the policies of Kennedy/Reagan/whomever "worked"?
For all of these must we infer that success was the higher probability outcome because success is what happened?
he identified the man, ok'd his strategy, and then gave him all the support he needed. sounds like a world of luck to me.
i fear for your children.
your child: look, i got an A- on my test!
you: seems a little pre-mature to congratulate you for not mucking things up worse. we will make hay over your accomplishments after you secure your graduation from harvard.
though i imagine when you aren't commenting on the political opposition's success, you are a little less dour.
Truth in Advertising, thank's for the comment above. It's disappointing that it took so long for someone here to say it. You posted a few links above, but there are dozens upon dozens of conservatives like myself who believe just the same.
To the contrary, I question the conservative credentials of anyone who does support this war at this point. I would also question the sanity and the pulse.
Because Bush listened to the wrong advisors. We are told Obama will surround himself, somehow, with smart people and listen to them so he doesn't need experience. Well, maybe. Then again, maybe not.
LtDan,
Thank you for your service. We appreciate what you are doing. We thank your family and loved ones as well and appreciate their sacrifice. My son was in Iraq in 06 &07 as a Marine. Hardest thing I've ever done was to have him there.
I hope the Iraqi's make a go of it. Turkey has so it is not impossible. Your point is well taken about getting the Iraqi Army the equipment they need. I hope we do. Thank, again.
on the internet you can cherry your pick your way to whatever conclusion about an ambiguous "they" that you want. i am sure there are many conservative pundits who did not support the surge now calling it brilliant, much are there are many liberal pundits who decry a policy until its success. your post merely points out the obvious of political journalism, make bold predictions and then crow about the ones you got right and fudge the ones you got wrong. the fact that conservative pundits did this or that does nothing to take away from the fact that bush and mccain got the surge right and you were wrong. eat your crow and get over it.
really? conservative credentials? im calling BS on yours...even Mr. Republican got on board with the war he opposed after it got started. i didn't like the start of the iraq war either, but good lord its 5 years after the mistake at the outset...the outset isn't the reality anymore. we need calculations and policies based on the reality we face not the fantasy land of domestic policy desires.
You are not a conservative. Quit being a seminar caller.
Nick
And now we have bloggers defending war crimes. Lovely.
Yes, I know about Godwin's law, but if the shoe fits...
On a more serious note, if Nancy Pelosi promised you a war crime trial would you believe her this time? Keep in mind she didn't defund the war as promised. Can you close your eyes really really tight and believe that this time it will be done?
Guess that cease-fire in 1991 that was continually violated and all of the U.N. resolutions that were violated are non-existent to Mark F. Must be nice to just conveniently forget these things to get to that "Bush is no different than the Nazis" point.
By the way, please cite the "international law" that Bush violated. I'd like to see which ones you are referring to.
Astrangerwithcandy, let me clarify, because I understand why you say what you do. To clarify my statements, while I agree that we need to face the realities of Iraq right now as it sits, there is an incalculable number of conservatives who think starting a conflict in Iraq years ago is still a great decision! Unbelievable! I hope that helps.
Wrong-O candyman. I strongly opposed going into Iraq but knew that it was going to happen anyways. At the time, I argued that we needed more troops on the ground, not fewer as Rumsfeld insisted. If you want to claim that the surge is the reason for the decline in violence than I was way ahead of McCain or Bush or yourself. I'm assuming that you know the taste of crow from your misguided support for getting into the war and Bush and McCain's premature claims of Mission Accomplished. Or did you never fess up to those misguided beliefs?
i eagerly await your citation of international law with jurisdiction in the United States.
how is the campaign lead by the best anchorman money can buy? i guess to paraphrase you, "wrong-o lying man" i didn't support the initial invasion. it is cute, however, that you know better than the secretary of defense. god bless your clairvoyant soul.
Except that one of the main leaders behind the "mistake at the outset" now wants to be president. Because of his allegedly superior judgment. Even though he said we would "win it easily."
not that this really applies, i just want to quote it:
- Teddy KGB
uh oh- don't look at the democratic record on this.
Once again I demand to know who's hacking Ace's password and randomly posting measured, nuanced comments. I'd think this would be an important website security issue.
Or all three sides?
The American invasion was a disastrous failure. The Sunni suicide campaign was another disastrous failure. The Times critique was a disastrous failure.
'But that "stable Iraq" will hardly resemble the foothold of democracy in the Arab world envisioned by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Co.'
At a minimum. Iraq isn't a real country, nobody there shows any long-term interest in governing it as if it were. The Sadrists are only biding their time for another opening, and I'm sure they'll get it.
Where's all this nuance i hear that liberals are capable of? When i have time i think i'm going to look up what Obama's said on this particular issue. I do know he once said that one thing he's pround of is that he never simplifies issues.
A. Zarkov wrote:
Interestingly enough, the American Communist Party was the very first nationally organized political group to advocate a direct military confrontation against the fascist forces. In Spain and China, notably. Ironically, American conservative forces were the ones who nationally benefitted the most the fascist uprising worldwide. As the left was shouting for war, American business leaders viewed fascism as a viable system to both preserve their interests and end the economic woes of the Depression. Truth is, FDR had to face more isolationism on his right than on his left...
Try this book by Michael Yon: www.amazon.com/
Moment-Truth-Iraq-Greatest-Generation/dp/0980076323
Lots of papers here:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/
Lots of stuff here too:
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/
What Soviet invasion of Poland? Not only did the communists support it, they made sure nobody in the US knew about it. Ask anybody. And, recently, Russia has said the Katyn Forest massacre was justified. Some things never change.
Various folks have detailed the head-snapping 180s the commies in the west did, as the line up changed. Anti-fascist. Then stay out of the bosses's war. Then be nice to the Germans (Molotov Ribbentrop), then, after Barbarossa, help the suffering Russian people.
Pete Seeger released an album calling for non-involvement. Ron Radosh, a pink diaper baby, recalls hustling around to record stores to retrieve the disks after Barbarossa.
The only thing anybody recalls from Seeger in those days is "Reuben James". Radosh &Co. did a bang-up job.
Yup. Commies are really the side of good and peace and all....
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com
/2008/06/gentile-not-gentle.html
In many of the capital’s most dangerous neighborhoods, the enhanced number of U.S. troops, a greater commitment by the ISF, and their permanent presence improved local security, allowed forces to “hold” cleared areas, and tamped down sectarian killings. Gentile is right, however, that the decision by many Sunni combatants to switch sides and Sadr’s decision to have JAM stand on the sidelines were the biggest causes of the reduction in violence in 2007. But, even here, the relationship to the surge is more complex than Gentile acknowledges. The Sunni Awakening began in Anbar months before the surge as a consequence of changing Sunni calculations regarding the utility of partnerships with U.S. forces to protect them from AQI atrocities and Shia militias (not just the “bribes” Gentile emphasizes). Nevertheless, although the beginning of the Awakening had little to do with the surge, in some areas, particularly in Baghdad and Diyala, the addition of extra forces and the provision of retail-level population security did facilitate the expansion of the Awakening. Likewise, although Sadr’s decision to freeze JAM activities in August 2007 was largely a reaction to intra-Shia competition, JAM’s deteriorating image, and a desire to achieve better command and control over his militia, it was also partly driven by a desire to avoid a direct confrontation with the more numerous and more present Americans.
Interesting discussion here, too:
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/
showthread.php?t=4782&highlight=Mansoor
These two excerpts sum it up in my opinion:
... the realationship of causes and effects in Iraq will be debated for a long time. I agree that there was no wholescale change in tactics, except possibly in certain local areas. The "surge" enabled us to more effectively execute those tactics in critical areas. Also, I think that beyond the simple increase of troop numbers, the surge represented a political statement of will to continue the fight in Iraq at a time when we were signalling transition and withdrawal.
... I think that some people fail to realize that there is no quick win in a COIN environment and the perceived success of the surge is also a result in part of seeds planted and actions taken long before the surge was devised or implemented. ... And of course COIN takes presence, patience, and persistence. You have to have security forces present in sufficient forces engaged with the population and providing the necessary secure environment. You must have patience because change does not happen over night, the enemy has a vote and most importantly the essence of COIN (as in all warfare) is about dealing with human behavior. And finally you must be persistent because not all strategies and tactics work in every situation. You must adapt strategies and tactics to suit the specific conditions and most importantly the changing conditions.
That is only because the fascist’s where fighting against the communist's. It is not like the American Communist party was advocating military action to further American interests.
... having first received their talking points from their Russian overlords. And then when Hitler and Stalin cut their deal on Poland, it was "our wonderful allies the fascists." Until Hitler broke the deal. I imagine many a communist suffered a sprained neck as their Russian puppetmasters kept pulling their strings in different directions. "It's Tuesday, so I must be an anti-fascist."
This shouldn't be a radical thought - it happens all over the world in similar situations, when dictators loose grasp of a multi-ethnic society previous held together by brutal force - we certainly saw it in Yugoslavia without even being involved.
So yes, the surge and a change of tactics worked in *2007*. But would have the extra manpower and the different tactics have worked in 2004? I'm thinking not. I don't think we would have had the cooperation of the Iraqis in 2004 that we have in 2007. Not only that, our men on the ground did not have the cultural understanding of the Iraqis in 2004 that they now do in 2007.
I'm not sure what would have worked best in 2004. There's always the cold possibility that nothing would have.
5 years of discussing Iraq and this is still the only level of reasoning your brain can achieve is it ?
Now there's a mixed metaphor that givev me a good mental image.
"Interestingly," the ACP followed the line on war and intervention coming out of Moscow. So between June 1940 and June 1941, interventionists were capitalist war mongers. Then came Barbarosa, and they stopped being evil once again.
Interestingly.
Apart from these people talking only about the troop increases and the situation in Anbar only relating to that decision in part, even if you wanted to cite this, is there a reason other than ignorance about Iraq that you waited until now to do it ?
Seriously, your ignorance is my only guess for why you post this now rather than 2 months ago.
Since then, the only thing that has has changed in regard to the positive security situtation in Anbar is that the SoI forces -- former insurgents numbering greater than 100000 -- which were largely responsible for this pacification have now started being targetted by the Iraqi government they were formerly promised employment with.
What explanation is there for this other than your complete ignorance of what is reported in the Iraqi media ? It's been rosy for quite a while until now. Now it looks decisively dark. And you've decided to pin the surge to it.
The fact is that the Middle East, Iraq and the world in 2008 is a much better place without a government as atrocious as that of Saddam's in it. The Iraqis are free from the horrid terror of Saddam and his sons, the Kuwaiti's no longer have to wonder if that rumble to the north isn't the Republican Guard coming again to pillage their country, Palistinian families are no longer compensated for the murder of Israelis, and terrorist the world over have one less place to acquire funds for their plots. Of course the left's favorite "international law" arbitators, France, Germany and the UN, are no longer getting millions of dollars of bribes and weapon deals for protecting Saddam and I guess that's a shame. Iraq must be a failure at all cost.
I suspect that in 10 years, much like Reagan and the Soviets, you won't be able to find any leftist who wasn't standing right beside Bush and, as you can see from the comments, the leftist are frantically searching for their Iraqi Gorbachev, whom they can credit for winning the war.
All this conjecture about whether Bush's surge was responsible, misses the main point. We absolutely know that following the recommendations of the leftists would not have resulted in the current state of affairs in the Middle East. At the very least, Saddam and his sons would still be in charge or, if Obama had been listened to in 2006, Iran would now have de-facto control and hundred of thousands of Iraqis who joined the US in struggling for freedom for their country would be dead.
Except for the leftists who luuved them some Iraq, cause Iraq luved France Germany and the UN (the REAL axis of evil).
And the left also luvs terror, which is the only explanation for why they weren't for this totally awesome war to begin with, and why they don't support it now that the surge has clearly brought us the satisfaction of total Mission Accomplishment(tm).
And its "success" also involved Iraqis getting really, really fed up with all the violence provoked by both the Americans and al-Qaeda, as well as payments (also labeled bribes) to thousands of Sunni insurgents to play nice.
But there is no way to call Iraq a "success" in any manner. Even if you take the thoroughly discredited reasons for invading in the first place off the table, it's already been a disaster for the Iraqi people. The utter lack of follow-up planning to the invasion allowed chaos to ensue and opened the door wide open to al-Qaeda and its allies to enter Iraq for real, and the resultant bloody mashup of American and insurgent forces was like a super Katrina washing over Iraq, leaving death and destruction behind. The "surge," even if it truly is working as advertised, was like the federal response to Katrina — too late and still half-assed.
Well he's trying to be nice. "Mendacity and stupidity" would have been more accurate.
The Surge has had very limited, partial, incomplete (and easily reversed) "success" far short of its original goals, and it stands out mostly because every other Administration plan for Iraq was a total and unequivocal failure.
With enough troops and bribe money we have been able to reduce, although not eliminate, violence. Political reconstruction of Iraq as intended? Not yet, perhaps not ever.
Speaking of mendacity and stupidity.
Dems who said we would "win it easily?" Really? I hadn't noticed. In any case, this is the number of Dems who said that, who are currently running for president: zero.
I guess that why Bush's approval ratings hit 90% shortly after he invaded Afghanistan. Then again, I guess it depends how you define "far."
Indeed. And the time will come that Maliki will return to his roots as an Islamist terrorist, and we'll have the same epiphany about him that we eventually had about Saddam, and the usual suspects will tell us about the grim threat posed by Maliki. We supported Saddam before we didn't.
I'd have thought this sad history would have chastened such advocates rather emboldened them.
Talk to any field grade or senior officer and they will tell you the surge has worked. Will it stay this way? Who knows? Do we and the Iraqis have a shot at building a stable society? I think so.
Lessons are learned the hard way, and almost all leaders fight the last war. Mistakes were made, but the progress now is real.
As soon as the Germans and Russians signed the non-aggression pact in 1939, the CPUSA and every other major communist party reversed their stance against intervention.
The Russians stole the Spanish treasury during the Civil War and used much of the money to fund the Comintern. Leftist volte faces are nothing new...
JB, I'd say we can be sure we've won in Iraq when the first military orders to Iraq are written allowing dependents to accompany the member.
Changes in position are specific to leftists. That's how you can spot them!
Nope. But the timing of surprising about-faces could give one pretty good circumstantial evidence that some leftists organization were merely fronts for TzK USSR.
Although I have no idea why I ever respond to you: You've posted, like, a billion times, and never once finished your comment with "Spooooooon!"
How can I take you seriously under those circumstances?
As for the Spooon ref, wrong character! But thank goodness for the joke. I'd worried that the recent bout Palin Blog Madness had sapped your sense of humor!]
Since you obviously don't know what "the surge" is, you should probably just read up on it to find the answer to your question.
It was not just throwing a few dozen thousand extra troops at the problem. It was a change in strategy and in basic antiinsurgent philosophy. Just a little resolve goes a long way, and that showed the Sunnis who were terrorized by Al Qaeda that we would stand with them against that evil, despite the constant whine in Washington about retreating in shame.
And Bush and the military accomplished this despite America's past broken promises to stand with the true freedom fighters of history, who were often then obliterated by tyrants.
And when we got the Sunnis to stand up against the oppressor, and lent just enough extra muscle to beat the crap out of the extremists, they took a large stake in victory, and in the success of their new democratic nation.
The extra military might, relatively small compared to the troops already there, added a good deal of flexibility to quickly move from target to target, and to morph with the changing conditions on the ground as the year progressed.
All this gave the Iraqi government time to solidify, to slowly gain the confidence of its constituents, and to root out troublemakers like Al Sadr.
Now if our own Congress could be as focused on "reconciliation" as the Iraqis. The Dems are more hopelessly bent on vengeance over dangling chads from 2000 than Iraqi Shias are over their tortured and disappeared families and mass graves.
I don't think Frank Rich wrote the Times' Grungespeak article (which I agree, was very unintentionally funny):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_speak
As for the surge--the cited article attributes the pacification of Anbar primarily to Sunni revolt against Al-Quaeda. We can plausibly claim that more American troops was a contributing factor, but what about simple internal sickness with everyday bombings, and what about our infrequently-spotlighted bribery of Sunni tribes to stop fighting us? If the latter counts as an element of the "troop surge" strategy, I think a new moniker is in order.
So yes, in a very qualified sense, liberal Times columnists have been wrong about the surge--but given that the war as a whole has been a pretty colossal and expensive failure, regardless of a tactic that restores violence to pre-bombing of the Askariya shrine levels, I think this lapse is pretty forgivable in comparison to the consistently wrong and goalpost-moving initial promoters of the war in the first place.
Your'e right. I looked back, and I did say that Rich "wrote" the story. Harsh realm! He was the section editor who set up some poor slob--whose name escapes me--to write the thing. Mr. Poor Slob added a few more mistakes, including calling Hole an all-female group. Which, if true, means that Kristen Pfaff was involved in a same-sex relationship with Eric Erlandson. And I'm not sure how that can be explained. And getting wrong the origins of the term "grunge" itself. Oops.
All to be discussed in its broader cultural and generational significance in my forthcoming book: "Grunge! What I Write about After I Get Tenure."
We won the Iraq "War" a long time ago. Saddam Hussein and his sons no longer rule Iraq. They have a democratically elected government.
Before we went in, there was a brutal tyrant in power, who murdered and tortured his own people, who filled mass graves, who violated the ceasefire agreement from the 1991 Gulf War (which was never officially ended), who violated UN resolutions, and who used corrupt governments and Marxist apologists and the treacherous United Nations to get around all sanctions.
We had a mad dictator who had possessed WMD, and who then failed to account for their current status, and who we now know planned to ramp up their production as soon as those pesky sanctions were lifted, which they would have been. That includes nuclear weapons, despite all the mockery from his compatriots on the Left. You think Iran and Libya were getting favoritism from AQ Khan over Saddam? Think again.
We had a wealthy financier of world-wide terrorism, who gave training and aid and sanctuary to some of the world's worst terrorists, including Abu Nidal and an architect of the original WTC attack of '93. He paid suicide bombers' families in Israel to motivate the killing of innocents. He sent death squads to kill political enemies abroad, including a former President.
And after the war, we have a democratic Iraq, a potentially powerful ally in the region. We have a state that actively fights terrorists, and finances none of it. We already have a more stable republic, run largely by Shiites. Contrast that with their neighbor Iran, which before was the only Shiite game in town.
We don't [all] know where Saddam sent or hid his WMD stock. But we now know where it isn't.
Also, directly because of the Iraq invasion, we thwarted a nuclear Libya. Now there's a bonus. We also got to reveal a whole host of world leaders, UN heads and British MPs to be corrupt traitors, selling out their responsibilities for a few thousand pounds. When history is finally recorded, George W. Bush and his wars (yes, "his" wars) will look very noble compared to the weasel traitors with their hand in Saddam's pie, and the smelly hippies preaching "peace and love" in favor of a ruthless mass murderer.
Only the Democratic party would paint the founding and fostering of free democracies around the world, where before there was only misery, as a "failure."
I guess the only revolution they approve of happened in 1917.
Yes, Lord Cornwallis. In a very qualified sense, good King George has been wrong about the Battle of Yorktown, but given that the American Revolution as a whole has been a pretty colossal and expensive failure...
'He noted in 2004, as did a number of senior officers, that we simply did not have enough troops on the ground.'
Shoot, I was complaining about that BEFORE the invasion started. My view was that Bush I failed to drive on Baghdad in Gulf I not for some prudential political reasons but because he had no infantry of his own and his borrowed infantry was not going to go with him.
Bush I tried to tell Bush II that you cannot occupy hostile territory without infantry, but Rumsfeld and his senior officers thought different.
The high command of the Army, both civilian and military, is thoroughly incompetent.
Getting rid of Saddam was great. But now we're in a hell of a fix.
I'm not in public life, so no one listens to me. There has been one -- and only one -- person in public life who has called for more infantry. That's Romney, and nobody listens to him either.
Thanks. I think yours was an excellent analysis.
I do believe the Iraqi Congress has accomplished a whole lot more than ours has in the last year or so. I don't think you really want to go there.
Could we have a little less "Ugly Americanism" on the part of our Leftist friends here, please? "Bribes" are a part of the Arabic culture. Have been since long before we existed as a nation. What would you have us tell the Arabs? They have to be Just like us or they are no good? We should have continued with our cultural ignorance and not figured out how their society works? Only if you wanted us to lose would that be a plan.
When did the Left get so damned elitist that everyone has to be like them or they are no good? Different societies do things differently. I think we just maybe can respect that. Get used to it, Sahibs.
Yeah! Not like the Right, who is willing to let the surrender monkeys rooting for the other side live and let live!
[Oregon GOP Senator Gordon] Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge has only a one in four chance of succeeding.
It was support from the home front. It was a loyal opposition, standing shoulder to shoulder with the President.
In its place, we had a constant wall of naysaying and white-flag waving and American flag burning.
We had a bursting-at-the-seams cauldron of anti-Americanism that bubbled night and day in all the world's capitals, including those of our fair-weather allies. We had the corruption of all the international institutions that were supposed to be responsible for doing what Bush finally had to take on by himself. America stood alone.
We had the non-stop partisan game-playing and outright treason that gave the enemy reasons to believe, good reasons to believe, that all they had to do was kill another thousand innocents, to blow up one more school, to behead one more journalist, and we would cut and run like the cowards they hoped we would be.
The terrorists had all the more reason to think that if they looked at history. The history of Beirut, the history of Somalia, the lack of consequences for the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the '93 WTC bombing. If they look back a little further, the lesson of Viet Nam: the only way to defeat America is to get the "anti-war" Marxist left wing to lobby for surrender.
Even with victory on the immediate horizon, the Dems are still pushing for retreat. This is where deadender "insurgents" get their motivation to go on.
If the Democrats were not owned outright by the enemy, and made it clear that we mean what we say, then maybe war could have been avoided to begin with. And the insurgency would not have had so much traction.
Remember, the success of the surge was not in its troop numbers. The war had already been won. What we need to win is the peace, and defeatist propaganda machines almost made that battle unwinnable.
But even that battle is finally seeing signs of victory. Not victory for the NY Times and George Soros. And not for the Democratic/moveon/Kos Party.
It was support from the home front. It was a loyal opposition, standing shoulder to shoulder with the President.
In its place, we had a constant wall of naysaying and white-flag waving and American flag burning.
We had a bursting-at-the-seams cauldron of anti-Americanism that bubbled night and day in all the world's capitals, including those of our fair-weather allies. We had the corruption of all the international institutions that were supposed to be responsible for doing what Bush finally had to take on by himself. America stood alone.
We had the non-stop partisan game-playing and outright treason that gave the enemy reasons to believe, good reasons to believe, that all they had to do was kill another thousand innocents, to blow up one more school, to behead one more journalist, and we would cut and run like the cowards they hoped we would be.
The terrorists had all the more reason to think that if they looked at history. The history of Beirut, the history of Somalia, the lack of consequences for the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the '93 WTC bombing. If they look back a little further, the lesson of Viet Nam: the only way to defeat America is to get the "anti-war" Marxist left wing to lobby for surrender.
Even with victory on the immediate horizon, the Dems are still pushing for retreat. This is where deadender "insurgents" get their motivation to go on.
If the Democrats were not owned outright by the enemy, and made it clear that we mean what we say, then maybe war could have been avoided to begin with. And the insurgency would not have had so much traction.
Remember, the success of the surge was not in its troop numbers. The war had already been won. What we need to win is the peace, and defeatist propaganda machines almost made that battle unwinnable.
But even that battle is finally seeing signs of victory. Not victory for the NY Times and George Soros. And not for the Democratic/moveon/Kos Party.
Just think of the Sheiks as the US Congress and the US Military as lobbyists.
Or perhaps an even better analogy would be to think of the Shieks as non-profits and the US Military as Congressmen, including Senators, getting them Federal funds in the form of earmarks. Considering that the only difference between a for profit and a non-profit is that the non-profit doesn't pay taxes on their profit, this is probably better as the Shieks probably don't declare the "bribes" and pay tax on them either.
I also wish we lived in Korla Pundit's America. In times of war, any disagreement with the war is treason.
And when we need to "win the peace" any dissent is treason.
It's brilliant! As long as we have troops deployed, the country is unified! I see no way this lack of any political check on the executive could backfire at all!
(Please note Kosovo counts as neither war nor peace, so NOT dissenting to that war was treason)
But I've also been thinking in terms of Civl War analogies. Petraeus may be remembered as a Grant-like figure if the US withdrawal from Iraq ends on a reasonably positive note. (I.e., not like Saigon in 1975.) The general who came in and radically revamped a losing strategy, bringing victory where others were ready to give up.
Anderson: Just a word of caution on sources like Smith's. I've just seen this over and over: Someone says that X said y, but we have no further evidence. Truman's "keep your agreements" comment to Molotov in 1945 comes to mind.
Has Petraeus confirmed the 1 in 4 statement? Has anyone else reported this as the probability he gave at that time? I honestly don't know. The author of the link you posted also seems unsure. Any follow up?
FDR? Never.
MLK? He voted for Eisenhower. And his dad warned Americans not to vote for JFK, since he was Catholic. So the "secretly" part is the only part that's way off.
melk--Your perspective intruiges me. I lean GOP, and was against the war from the beginning. But I never thought of myself as "pro-Saddam." Anymore than was Bush I or Scowcroft.
Perspectives differ in surprising ways. Don't know what else to conclude.
I, personally, am glad that Saddam has been deposed and is now executed like the murderous animal he was. But I am not really interested in Saddam or his hideous offspring and their much deserved fates. What interests me is the strategic value of Iraq in the still hot war against Islamic terror. It's flypaper; if we are there, then they must also be there, and we can engag and kill them on their own soil, and not in the streets of American towns and cities. If it wasn't Iraq, it could as well have been Iran, or Syria or even Saudi Arabia; each and any of them would have been just as effective as an irresistable magnet for these nihilistic freaks.
On 9/11 I saw Arab muslim women and children dancing in the streets in rapture at the news that thousands of American citizens had been murdered by Jihadis. From that day forward, until those people redeem themselves as fit to share my planet, I wish upon them every evil that they dream of for me and mine. Furthermore, I intend to support any program that will deliver this to Muslim Arabs where ever they are, for as long as this so called religion is not considered the corrupt cult of brigands and caravan robbers that it is.
You can disagree. That's not treason.
But leaking classified top secrets repeatedly on the cover of the Times? Broadcasting enemy-created propaganda and snuff films of American soldiers? Creating your own propaganda with Photoshop to harm the war effort? To accuse Marines of "cold-blooded" murder? To take Saddam's blood money and advocate desertion and insubordination? To print lies about fake war atrocities? To weep and cry about possible discomfort of Khaled Shiek Mohammed when some of his victims' ashes are still floating in the New York City air? To travel to Baghdad before the war on Saddam's dime to get in front of his cameras and make accusations against your own government on foreign soil? To out secret agents who gave us the dirt on AQ Khan's nuclear blackmarket and put them at risk? To lie about "korans in the toilet," causing riots and death just to make George Bush look bad?
Yeah, that's treason.
But WW-2 has it all! Great Villains (Hitler, Chamberlain) great American heroes (FDR, Churchill, Stalin) and a heckuva explosive ending.
Petraes would be Omar Bradley, cause they both have pretty cool names. And then like all of AlQueda that's still alive could be Rommel (Desert Fox, get it?).
I think that makes Palin Truman, with FDR being a Bush/McCain hybrid.
And Pakistan is totally France, I think.
-----
But I thought MLK was one of those Communist Republicans!
I don't blame him for voting for Ike. I always mixed Ike up with Truman anyhow.
Whether you like it or not, there is a very fine line between disagreement with policy and aid and support for the enemy especially in a world as small as this one has become.
I do hope Viet Nam is not too far back for most of you to remember.
Are you kidding? The '60s has been the Dem platform for years now. Only they were wrong then, too.
But then I found an article on Vietnam General Vo Nguyen Giap's diary on Snopes.
Looks like Snopes has been taken over by leftists too!
Looks like all that's left to trust is Rush Limbaugh and Free Republic!
Perhaps if you spelled his name right more answers would come up?
(But you've now given me a great name for Hanoi's first gay-themed night club, should I decide to go into that business.)
I don't blame him for voting for Ike. I always mixed Ike up with Truman anyhow.
it's hard on tape until you get used to it. their accent is pretty similar. Though Truman's speech was oddly clipped when "speechifying."
[I did do the search with minh, btw. Couldn't find anything. I would be interested if this were true, though. I think current protestor culture is largely silly and ineffectual feel-good crap (kinda like my persona on this blog), but I do wonder about the one time it seemed to be effective.]
But Hoosier, I was merely repeating the name as noted Ho Chi Men expert Mac did!
Well, then you don't expect me to give you a fee for naming rights for the club. Right?
But I missed mac's post. Ho didn't leave a diary, just a "testament" to the people of Vietnam. He did write at least one biography of himself under an assumed name. probably more. Is that what mac means? Or was he refering to Giap?
Giap said that, among other things the left would not like to hear made public--but cheer among their own kind.
Why would the left care that they stopped a war that has since been proven not to have been necessary for the survival of Capitalism?]
via http://www.applet-magic.com/NorthVietnam0.htm
Why would the left care about the millions who died as a result of American withdrawal and the abandonment of the South Vietnamese to a ruthless dictatorship?
Answer: they wouldn't. They don't care about much, except taxing you up the wazoo.
And does anyone think the draft might have had something to do with sapping America's desire for foreign adventurism?
Remember, we were fighting not the Viet-Cong, but China by proxy. How was China's fighting spirit?]
It's transparent now. You're not antiwar. You just root for the other side. You know, for the "freedom fighters."
And how is it transparent to any but a crazy person that anyone who disagrees with Iraq loves the insurgency?]
Read my comment again.
Dissent does not mean leaking classified secrets. It does not mean aiding the enemy. It does not mean making false accusations against the troops.
You can dissent all you want. But actively hurting the war effort is treason.
Get it now?
I thought we were talking "leftist propaganda," not classified secrets.
But As for classified secrets, I daresay this may have something to do with the extension of what is classified these days. Indeed, Republicans have fallen prey to this issue as well.
Moreover, it doesn't look like anyone has actually been harmed by these so called leaks. I guess those traitors at the times are kinda bad at aiding the enemy, eh?
And the Murtha false accusation thing you alluded to...yeah, looks like he got some bad info there. But that's hardly treason. His intent seemed to me to be to show the strain the troops were under, not to undermine the war effort.
OK. Did Newt Gingrich leak secrets to the enemy?
Did Bush Sr. go around the world denouncing his successor and America as a whole for its actions in the Balkans?
Did the NY Post print false accusations of war crimes to make Clinton look bad?
Maybe those who didn't like our presence in Kosovo were right, since it's still a bigger mess there than it is now in Iraq.
Or do you only dislike Republican wars?
We're talking about the current war. I know it's hard to keep track.
NY Times does it all the time. Many useful intelligence operations have been destroyed by their BDS.
I called the WaPo because of other info about that. The guy who answered the phone happened, by coincidence, to be the lead writer. He lied about the circumstances, but seemed proud of the result.
WaPo had to get the info someplace.
That person was a traitor--the WaPo, too, in reality if not legally--and I hope they can be punished in some way.
Haney doesn't say who he thinks burned these ops, but I get the impression he thinks it was Kissinger. Just a feeling.
I can only assume it was because of Bush's manliness that we haven't been attacked yet, what with these constant and important leaks leaving us wide open.
Hmmm. American Wars I like:
Revolution.
1812.
Civil War.
Mexican–American War
WW-II.
Korea (except for the ending)
Kosovo.
Iraq I.
Looks like in the modern era I lean a bit dem war-wise, I guess. But is that bias, or is it an alignment of policy positions?
As a result of political internecine skirmishing in the Administration, Powell was rudely shoved aside (I'm sketchy on details right now, but that's what I recall from reent books by Karen DeYoung and Bob Woodward). Hence the necessity for the surge, which appears to have been a rousing success. (Do I oversimplify? Very well then, I oversimplify. I'm large, I'm American, I'm complex, and I'm usually very busy.)
It wasn't only the left that didn't learn anything from Vietnam.
Ummm, no.
Another of Saddam's useful idiots.
Thanks for the Viet Nam info. I had not had time to look it up. Appreciate it. Right war, right fact, wrong guy. Sorry
I never claimed to be the best speller on this blog, especially with foreign names.
Please, read a history book, Sarcasto. Viet Nam and China have a fascinating relationship going back centuries. I think a good many Vietnamese would take some very serious exception to your view of them and their relationship with China.
Harry Eager wrote:
Harry, 2007 end of year revenues to US Treasury were at record levels. We were in a recession when Bush took office and then 9/11 happened and devastated our economy. We do seem to increase revenues to the US Treasury every time we lower taxes and it happened this time, too. So I never get this raise taxes thing. Besides, Johnson paid for his war by putting social security into the General Fund, thus insuring the mess we are in today and it's inevitable insolvency. Bush didn't have a slush fund to raid like Johnson did. Oh yeah, Johnson had to pay for the Great Society, too.
I think taxes were pretty darn high back then and I don't think the economy was so great. I could be wrong though.
Kennedy lowered taxes to get the economy started as it was in a recession when he took office. It worked. The economy was a mess until Reagan got in and lowered taxes.
Your thoughts?
You seem to assume "surge" is the reason behind a pacified Anbar Province. I remember the reduction in violence starting before the surge, which first took place in Baghdad, weeks if not months before Anbar.
Could it be because we decided to cooperate with the powerful tribal leaders in the area, so that they have de facto autonomy in managing the region instead of trying to impose democracy, protection of ethnic or religious minorities, women's rights and a host of other political achievements? I am not saying that is not a wise choice given the hostility, but that is clearly not our stated original aim of spreading real democracy. You know, the one we used after failing to find any WMDs. This is just a way of re-defining success, so that we can declare victory and leave. Fortunately, the enemy is not a coherent entity unlike the communists in Vietnam, so we can claim we won this war as long as Saddam is not there even if we leave behind a collection of regions governed by autocratic tribal or religious leaders. Still, I am happy we can finally get out, as we are wasting too much money on this project.
I once screwed up a case, badly. By the intent of the rules, any chance my client had to challenge his conviction should have been over. But I found a creative way around the intent of the rules, and executed it in a way the prosecutor did not notice what I was doing (even though I served him with all documents, of course). It worked.
Normally, you can take credit for such creative litigation. But it's a little unseemly to say, "Look how great a job a did fixing my major screw up."
When McCain brings up the success of the surge, he's only reminding us of the disaster that resulted from his bad judgment to support the invasion in the first place.
Good point. If we want to win via bribes, we could have done that from the start.
Imagine taking all the money we spent on the war, and dropping it from airplanes over Iraq. Bomb them with cash, in other words. If you do the math, the per capita sum is very impressive. Tens of thousands of dollars. Especially if you include our realistic long-term costs (like caring for injured vets).
And, in a way, we did bomb them with cash. There are literally hundreds of tons of cash (billions of dollars) that are unaccounted for.
I didn't realize we were discussing Dubya's pals in the Saudi royal family.
I didn't realize we were discussing Valerie Plame.
Here's something that Dubya said while 3 Americans were being held as POWs: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." Please explain why that should be seen as something other than "propaganda … detrimental to our military efforts."
Yeah, you could.
Apparently you've forgotten the 10% income tax surcharge war tax of the '60s. Which proved to be inadequate. Which contributed a lot to problems later on.
It doesn't matter so much how much your revenue rises if your outgo rises faster. Bush is paying for his war with Mugabenomics. Crank up the printing presses.
Funny how the ol' world turns. When I was a lad, the Republicans were the party of tight spending, isolationism and witch hunts, and the Democrats were the party of international adventurism, big deficits and free speech.
"Interestingly," the ACP followed the line on war and intervention coming out of Moscow. So between June 1940 and June 1941, interventionists were capitalist war mongers. Then came Barbarosa, and they stopped being evil once again.
Interestingly."
I suggest you re-read my previous post Hoosier. I mentioned, as an example of a leftift organization advocating war rather than peace (to debunk the forementioned perception by A. Zarkov that left=pacifism in all occurrences), that the CPUSA (or ACP) hed been faster on pressuring FDR to take military actions against fascists abroad, which is historically accurate.
Your point seems to be that the official line advocated by Earl Browder was pinned by Moscow, which I concur with in most instances. But it should be noted that the left didn't start, nor ended, within the borders of the CPUSA. Even within the party's sphere of influence, nombrous groups kept pressuring the American political class to get involved, despite Moscow's position on the matter. Such was the case for American Friends of the Chinese People and the Chinese Handlaundry Alliance, for example, who kept going with their warmongering even under the Molotov-Ribbentrop era, despise their tight links to the CP.
And I didn't even mention the nombrous Unions who went the same way, while industrials were complaining that the left had influenced FDR in such that they couldn't freely trade scrap iron to the Axis forces anymore.
Peace!
phentermine cheap
nature photos
photos of nature
nature photos
Mature Movie gallery
mature movie gallery
mature gallery
adult galleries
http galleries adult
http galleries adult
movie galleries
movie galleries com
movie com
us army
us army artillery
us army artillery
fat woman
fat older woman
fat older woman
Replace Hard drive
Replace laptop Hard drive
Replace laptop drive
Bostons Bars
Boston hotel restaraunt
Boston restaraunt
Как же её запустить в висте? Пробовал [url=http://pcnotes.ru/102]этим[/url] методом, не помогает...
"Historically accurate" but so chronologically incomplete as to be deceptive. The actual narrative would be: "They were against the war before they were for it."
Программа отказывается работать в Windows Vista, в XP работает нормально.
You just need to hit Windows with a bigger hammer.
[url=http://glohret.sitebooth.com/for5218.html] for [/url] [url=http://blimstock.hostaim.com/for6436.html] for [/url]
[url=http://areaww.strefa.pl/car4823.html] car [/url] [url=http://blimstock.yourfreehosting.net/for4609.html] for [/url]
[url=http://blimstock.yourfreehosting.net/for8615.html] for [/url] [url=http://glohret.iifree.net/car2989.html] car [/url]
[url=http://kyboo.seitenclique.net/car5697.html] car [/url] [url=http://kyboo.247ihost.com/for2928.html] for [/url]
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-and-blisters.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-dependence.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-for-stress-relief.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-is-an-opioid.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-no-pr.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-overuse.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-take-home-pack.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/vicodin-while-breastfeeding.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/what-can-xanax-do.html
http://mtgjaa.0catch.com/what-does-vicodin-do.html
Bye
[url=http://esween.itrello.com/car5251.html] car [/url] [url=http://kikky.strefa.pl/com2898.html] com [/url]
Seroquel (quetiapine) contains the active ingredient quetiapine, which is one of the more recent Atypical anti-psychotic drugs used in the treatment of [url=http://qvisory.org/users/seroquel_online_c]buy seroquel cheap[/url] Compare our Seroquel and find a Buy Effexor thats right for you.
Side effects of stopping celexa, save up to 75% online, always low prices at our drugstore, order online lowest price drugs easy, absolute a new freedom [url=http://qvisory.org/users/celexa_online_a]celexa side effects[/url] Celexa patent. All information about Celexa patent.
Listing for Lexapro (escitalopram oxalate) in FDA Approved Drug Therapies Archives from CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing Service. [url=http://qvisory.org/users/lexapro_online_d]Buy Generic Lexapro Online Without a Prescription[/url] Lexapro from licensed online Pharmacy. US Licensed doctors. FREE WORLDWIDE DELIVERY for the orders more than 200$. AirMail delivery, Courier delivery,
Buy cheap propecia online discounts Buy Finasteride Propecia Cheap Online Buy Finasteride Propecia Cheap Online Just another WordPress weblog Buy propecia [url=http://qvisory.org/users/propecia_online_d]buy propecia online[/url] I know a web-site where there is a Cheap propecia. I can give the link. Help to find in the Internet the Cheap propecia! Write on e-mail.
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/5fhegg][B]CLICK HERE[/B][/URL]
[url=http://adulterese.k2free.com]Syren adult star[/url]
DOTA
На портале SEO-DISCOUNTS.COM вы сможете найти и купить лучшие на рынке seo инструменты по приемлемым ценам! Покупая продукт у нас вы экономите время и деньги!
оптимизация сайта, seo сайт, seo сервисы, seo, seo soft, поисковики, повышение ТИЦ, seo блог, рассылка, парсер
i take seen some makings on youtube almost darkorbit being a plot that drudgeers use etc and that if you send your id to a covey (that they eclipse u on youtube) you get like 5000 uridum.
is this true?? (reasonable for confermation no i takent downloaded any of there drudge tools or sent my id off to them)
Also i got my depart blown up by some every now trigger lucky guy so im wonderin does anyone be informed how i can get uridum with out goin in the solid fake and collectin it? (cos me departs blown up i got no notes to buy the uridum etc off the bigpoint placement beneath 'Credits' on the neighbourhood.
So yeah does anyone be informed how i can get uridum??
like let me differentiate as in the near future as possable as i reasonable bought the piranha starfighter depart and pretence stand by to use my tot [url=http://forum.rc-mir.com/topic1842529_30.html]DarkOrbit cheats forum[/url]
http://veradelond.forum24.se/ [url=http://veradelond.forum24.se/]Tramadol[/url]
http://gruklivl.forum24.se/ [url=http://gruklivl.forum24.se/]Xanax[/url]
http://vegrodel.forum24.se/ [url=http://vegrodel.forum24.se/]Viagra[/url]
[url=http://magictricks.phpnet.us]Magic Trics Videos[/url] http://magictricks.phpnet.us
GadGet098ToFoll
http://diazepam10.communityhost.de/ [url=http://diazepam10.communityhost.de/]Order Diazepam online[/url]
http://retuksavet.communityhost.de/ [url=http://retuksavet.communityhost.de/]purchase tramadol without a prescription[/url]
http://delasvol.communityhost.de/ [url=http://delasvol.communityhost.de/]buy adderall without prescription[/url]
http://jonathansh.communityhost.de/ [url=http://jonathansh.communityhost.de/]buy Oxycodone overnight free delivery[/url]
[url=http://www.edf.ru./forum/sendmessage.php]California Wrongful Death Attorneys [/url]
http://www.google.com/profiles/mishkausa01
http://mishkausa01.t35.com
http://mishkausa0.l4rge.com
http://mishkausa0.freehostia.com
http://mishkausa01.cwahi.net
mishkausa01 t35.com sex
mishkausa0 l4rge.com porn
mishkausa0 freehostia.com celeb sex
mishkausa01 cwahi.net adult sex
http://groups.google.ru/group/elenamartinova/web/2www
http://groups.google.ru/group/elenamartinova/web/3www
http://groups.google.ru/group/elenamartinova/web/4www
http://groups.google.ru/group/elenamartinova/web/5www
http://groups.google.ru/group/elenamartinova/web/6www
http://groups.google.ru/group/elenamartinova/web/7www
http://groups.google.ru/group/elenamartinova/web/8www
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.