Escalation

They're already blaming the fact that things are going poorly in Iraq on the fact that the press told them things were going poorly in Iraq, so they didn't believe that things were going poorly in Iraq. Or something circular like that.

Someone is going to be blamed for this fiasco, and it's probably not going to be the people responsible for it.

Seconding some of your points contra Kevin Drum, even after the surge escalation fails, conservatives will still blame liberals. Better to have the factual basis to call them on their crap. For chrissakes, as the LA Times made abundantly clear between the lines, the tropp escalation was decided befre we figured out any sort of strategy whatsoever. We still haven't decided which side they are going to take. This is on no way a path towards success at all. Jus a hint, while some people will suggest before we send them that we decided on a mission, their actual instructions will be so amorphous that it reflects a complete lack of anything that can reasonably be described as a "strategy". WE will simultaneously not crack down on the Mahdi army, even if we make some bold move against Sadr, and not stop the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. I wish there was a tradesports category for these things, so at least someone would have to pay for this horrible and depraved war we keep escalating.

With this backdown and about-face, it looks as if the principle civilian control of the military is preserved in practice, despite President's insistence that he's merely following the wishes of the commanders on the ground in Iraq, in his constitutional role of listener-in-chief.

"It's on us -- Kevin, me, anyone who writes about politics for a living, hell, anyone who reads about politics frequently -- to prevent this from becoming the conventional wisdom."

Agreed. I think I read this at Atrios', or maybe digby's, but basically, it's up to dems to clean up after republicans. It's always been this way, always will be. The only way to avoid the stabbed-in-the-back narrative is for dems to fix this. I don't know if that's possible, theoretically speaking, let alone practical-speaking.

But really, with the internet tubes and polarizing climate and past Vietnam experience - I doubt this narrative will stick this time around. Too much information too readily available now for such trite excuses like the one already used from Vietnam.

I concur that there's no point whatsoever in supporting the surge. First of all, it's wrong and stupid on the merits: it's just "hammering isn't working, so get a bigger hammer."

Second, it's wrong as a long-term political strategy. The fact is that, short of a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, we can't pass a new AUMF superseding the old one, and we're not going to cut the Iraq budget while there's troops in the field. So we might as well go hard against the war, and try to pass a new AUMF for withdrawal (which Bush will veto, and we'll fail to override).

Then they'll still get everything they want to prosecute this abomination of a war, but we'll be on record that we were doing our damnedest to stop the madness. And that can be our retort as long as the issue is debated: we were agin it, but you had everything you said you needed to win, and you still wasted thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, before we were forced to exit the Green Zone by helicopter. Which will probably happen before the 2008 election.

The "we never put the necessary resources into it" narrative didn't "stick" the last time around, either. Is it central to any standard histories of Vietnam? Is it taught in any schools? Is it seriously debated in the service academies? The only traction it had was with a very small, select group of "thinkers" -- and as Matt suggests, that group will think the same about Iraq, too, no matter what happens now. The problem was not that the counter-narrative of Vietnam took hold, or prevailed in any sort of public debate. The problem was that we permitted that small, idiosyncratic, minority-view cabal *to take control of the Vice President's office and the Pentagon,* and to transform their worldview into U.S. policy notwithstanding the fact that they had never really convinced anyone outside an AEI seminar room of the basic truth of it.

Thus, I fear Kevin Drum is wrong to think that the coming "surge" will be beneficial for purposes of the writing of the history of this war. But even if he were right about that, isn't the cost here -- hundreds or thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives; the destruction of countless families; stretching the military even thinner; billions of dollars; etc. -- a bit steep as compared to the possibility that a few dozen pundits will temper their rhetoric in the years to come?

I completely agree that conservatives will try to blame the eventual loss in Iraq on something other than the war itself (bad execution, liberal perfidy, biased media, blah blah blah). However, if they get the surge they keep babbling about, it will be a lot harder to convince the public that they have a point.

I've long been an advocate for withdrawal, and if Dems had the power to make this happen that would be my preference. However, since Dems don't have any real power to affect strategy, I'm just as happy to see Bush giving the hawks what they want. It makes it at least slightly more likely that we'll learn the right lesson from this fiasco, and in the long term that might be more important than whether the war lasts 67 months or 74 months.

So, we're going to encourage people to make murderous mistakes so that they won't blame us for their murderous mistakes.

That sounds like a murderous mistake.

Just to combine the discussion of the previous post on Sistani with this one, it should be immediately obvious that whatever gets chosen as the strategy behind the escalation (either a Cheney-ite move against the Sunni insurgents around Baghdad or a Baker-ite move against Sadr), the cause chosen was not so immediately clear that we could say after weeks of discussing it, and after deciding on an escalation, what that strategy should be. It behooves the democrats to get Republicans in the administration to commit to an answer for who we are actually fighting. When they reply with idiocies like "the forces fighting the government", we need to remind them that Sadrists are part of the government. After more than three years of fighting, we are still relying solely on tactics, with no strategic vision whatsoever, and that is a collossal failure of leadership.

Kevin: What do you mean that the Dems "don't have any real power to affect strategy"? Of course they have the *power* to do so: They now control both houses of Congress. To the extent they can reach any consensus views on what the President must or must not do, they can pass a statute to that effect. Of course, the President might veto such a bill, and the Republicans might not support an override of such a veto, but at least in that case the responsibility will be clear, and everyone will have had the opportunity to stand up and be counted.

The real problem, alas, is not a lack of power, but the (very understandable) difficulty of obtaining any Democratic consensus on just what, exactly, should be required or prohibited.

Rightwingers will blame somebody other thhan themselves: that's a given. It also is irrelevent. The battle is for the hearts and minds of everybody else. Most Americans are not rightwingers. Most Americans are idependents, moderates, uncommitted, low informationm voters or non voters, or liberals. THAT'S who we need to be worried about: will the conservatives succeed in convincing them that the failure is the fault of Democrats?
I agree with Kevin. Let the Bush administration have their way. As long as the Republicans get to manage Iraq war the way they want to, the more they are identified with the war and the harder it will be for them to convince the 70% of the population that lies outside their base that it is anyone's fault but their own.
The drunk has to be allowed to hit bottom.

I'd like to say that decisions of war and peace should transcend politics. But then just last night I read how the vote on the War of 1812 was along party-sectional lines almost to a man.

And these days, one can't know for sure but that the surge will work, and as Drum says, it's going to happen anyway, and why risk being accused of defeatism?

Still, it's evident now that had all Democrats with doubts about the war voted those doubts, they'd stand better politically today. So it may well be with the "surge." It's a good bet that it will be mismanaged, it's a good bet that it's another mission impossible. It may well be that again the Democrats should vote their doubts, which have proven well founded in the past. Especially since they can find many generals who share those doubts.

The good news about the forthcoming surge is that everyone now concedes that addition troops sent to Iraq "must be given clear instructions" and while "U.S. commanders in Iraq have not settled on what that mission should be" they do assure us that they will "decide before calling up new units."

Are we supposed to be glad that they are giving additional troops instructions, and defining what their mission should be? How about we back up a bit and give our current troops additional instructions and inform them what their current mission in Iraq is? Until this administration can define what the current mission in Iraq is and what the troops over there are supposed to be doing (rather than having a "mission of victory") all talks of additional troops should be off the table.

Ya...right.

I think that "Cleaning Up Their Mess" should be the Democratic theme for the forseeable future. We have to hammer away at it, and we have to repeat over and over again that the Iraq War is the worst avoidable foreign policy disaster in American history, and that it will take us a long time to recover. There really have to be recriminations, ruined reputations, and destroyed careers (i.e., accountability). The only defense against the "stabbed in the back" meme is a strong counterattack against the people who gave us the war.

If that means that pro-war Democrats have to be shoved to the back of the room, so be it.

The weak spot in what I said is that the bullhorn is still in the hands of the bad guys. However, that will be the problem with every single thing that the Democrats will ever do. As long as the pro-war neocon faction dominates the media, the US will be in a very bad place. Exclusion from the media isn't the kind of problem that can be finessed or strategized.

Kevin's reasoning is mistaken. Once the first escalation fails, the lesson is never that escalation is a failure. The solution is ALWAYS more escalation.

From The Best and the Brightest-
They had turned to the bombing out of their own desperation, because what they were doing no longer worked and because bombing was the easiest thing. It was the kind of power which America wielded most easily, the greatest technological superpower poised against this preposterously small and weak country. ("Raggedy-ass little fourth-rate country," Lyndon Johnson called it during the great debates, complaining to John McCone of the CIA about the lack of information coming out of Hanoi. Wasn't there someone working in the interior of their government who would slip out with a stolen paper saying what they were going to do? "I thought you guys had people everywhere, that you knew everything, and now you don't even know anything about a raggedy-ass little fourth rate country. All you have to do is get some Chinese coolies from a San Francisco laundry shop and drop them over there and use them. Get them to drop their answers in a bottle and put the bottle in the Pacific..." (512)

(Indeed, a few months earlier Mac Bundy had shown a member of his staff some of the planning for the escalation, particularly the bombing, and the aide has been impressed by how thorough it all was, lots of details. Bundy asked the aide what he thought, and he answered that though he didn't know anything about the military calculations, "the thing that bothers me is that no matter what we do to them, they live there and we don't, and they know that someday we'll have to go away and thus they know they can outlast us." Bundy considered the answer for a moment. "That's a good point," he said. (578)

"The "we never put the necessary resources into it" narrative didn't 'stick' the last time around, either. Is it central to any standard histories of Vietnam? Is it taught in any schools? Is it seriously debated in the service academies?"

Speaking as a published historian myself, I can assure you that all this is far less relevant to popular understandings than, say "Rambo." Popular understandings of history have notoriously little to do with what any of *us* teach. Moreover, the fact of the matter is that, on one level, the Right is, well, right; we can win *anything* if we're willing to pay the price. What the Right ignores or denies is that there's such a thing as a price not worth paying. That's what happened in the end in Vietnam; we *could* have won it, but at a price--in lives, resources, and basic moral decency--we decided [quite sensibly] was way too high. But such rubber-meets-the-road issues can easily be forgotten in retrospect; what remains is the popular American desire to take pride in their country and to rest assured that it will always be capable of protecting what is dear to them. That their country might prove at some point incapable of protecting them [That's what "losing a war" could mean, after all, and certainly does in the still-lingering aftermath of 9/11] is pretty frightening; most people would much rather believe that there's a fix available. And what fix is more efficacious than "throw the [your scapegoats here] out!"? You may not have noticed, but the Republicans have gotten a great deal of mileage out of the "You can't trust the Democrats to protect you" meme ever since Vietnam--regardless of what anybody has taught about it. The Democratic response--that "toughness" isn't enough, that you have to be smart and sensitive and diplomatic as well--is always going to be a hard sell to those who've been schooled by Hollywood movies and locker-room sloganeering more than they've been paying attention in the history classroom.

My experience is that anyone born after about 1965, even the Democrats among them, has been indoctrinated with a false, one-dimensional, and tendentious history of the Vietnam War. There's been a well-financed, systematic, organized effort to do this.

You really should stop echoing the word "surge" to describe the administration's plans to escalate the number of troops sent to die in aWol's evil war.

I don't think anyone should support sending troops to be killed, maimed and driven insane because it will help make politicians look bad in the long run. American troops are getting their brains blown out and doing things like killing children, setting the corpses of girls they've raped on fire, etc., and not because they're evil but because that's what happens in war and what it does to people.

This debate is far too abstract. Making it more concrete is the best insulation against further adventurism. When people understand what war is they're less likely to be bulled into supporting it on shoddy evidence.

However, if they get the surge they keep babbling about, it will be a lot harder to convince the public that they have a point.

I just don't think that's true. As long as they control the bullhorn, they will be completely shameless.

I think that getting the word out is the whole game here. Democrats' problems in this area are in large part not their fault. The people you see on TV range from hard right to center-right to center-left liberal hawks (and weak Democratic stooges like Colmes.)

I have no solutions that don't cost tens of millions of dollars (for new media). And it's no joke -- recent Democratic successes do owe a lot to the appearance of the new internet media.

In short, the better the Democrats get at getting their own message out aggressively, the less they have to think about "how it will look" -- i.e., what the TV talking heads will say. And while turning the media imbalance around will be a very difficult task, without doing that Democrats will continue to lose.

My friends doing work in this area tell me that the big Democratic donors are completely uninterested in long-term message development and delivery. Air America, a good beginning, has gotten very little support (and after having said that, I'm confident that someone here will pop up to explain that AA does not deserve support).

Man, Kevin Drum is suffering from a really profound case of Abused Democratic Spouse Syndrome. All the verbal symptoms are there:

I have no power.

My only hope is appeasment.

Maybe if I allow Daddy to beat the children more, he will be pacified and stay away from me.

So according to Drum-like defeatists our only hope is to let the President kill more of our soldiers, so that we can say later that they had their chance?! This is a simulataneously weak, immoral and idiotic stance - it's pathetic. Earth to Drum: if the war goes into the history books as a failure, the wingers are going to try to blame their domestic opponents no matter what! You think a final little surge is going to stop them, or make a drop's worth of difference to the rhetorical warfare of the decades to come? Grow up and get out of your fetal position. There are only two options to take against these cads: fight or submit.

The wignuts have so much to answer for! Personally? I can't wait to duke it out with all those pathetic little chickenhawks in 2012 and 2016 and 2020 and 2040. Why are so many Democrats always so afraid that they are doomed to lose the political arguments, even before the arguments start? How about some courage and self-respect! Here's an idea: stop simpering about the big, bad Republicans and how they always blame us for things - and go out and win the fucking argument against them.

Hey Republicans: In the elections to come, the swift boats are going to be turned in a different direction. So bring it on.

Funny how nobody is talking about pulling our troops out of Iraq now....the "surge to failure" plan is already a success in that regard.

I don't think turning the U.S. military into a Christian militia that fights on the side of the Sunnis is what voters had in mind when they booted the Republicans from power.

Stopping this publicity stunt will be the Democrats first test...

Dan, I pretty much agree, but the germ of truth in what he said is that with the media stacked the way they are Democrats always start off in the hole and thus have to play a careful game. I spent several years bitching about timid Democrats, but my partner Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest, along with others, convinced me that the Democrats cautiouness has been forced on them. (In many cases, for example, Democrats DO speak out loudly, but the media ignore them.)

On the other hand, Democrats have to understand where the real problem is and work on that, rather than trimming policy to accomodate Chris Matthews.

And the DLC, I am convinced, likes the present situation because they put a higher priority on beating the Democratic left than they do on beating the Republicans. It's really a mess,because they argue their actually-favored positions in the language of political cynicism, weakening the Democratic message in two different ways.

I can't understand what Ackerman and Drum are so afraid of. No one believes this nonsense about Vietnam except far right nuts who'd vote Republican in any case.

"Looking back at the war in Vietnam, do you think we did the right thing in getting into the fighting in Vietnam, or should we have stayed out?"

Did the right thing - 24%
Should have stayed out - 60%

"Some people say the American role in Vietnam was a noble cause. Other people say it was wrong and immoral. Do you think it was a noble cause, or wrong and immoral?"

Noble cause - 37%
Immoral - 35%
Wrong but not immoral - 8%

http://www.pollingreport.com/vietnam.htm

To:
Posted by: Marty Lederman on December 23, 2006 01:53 PM

and

Posted by: Dan Kervick on December 23, 2006 05:33 PM

I think foreign policy is completely up to the decider. I hope I'm not oversimplifying, but basically, the only power congress can flex is the power of the purse. The President will send troops, then dare congress not to provide funding.

I guess congress could do the pay as you go thing, putting a little political pressure on Bush to explain each appropriations bill and why military spending should trump whatever other program, but he'd probably just use his signing statements to circumvent anything and everything.

Basically, politicians compromise. It's their nature, it's what they do. And if they don't compromise with Bush, they're be a constitutional showdown. Can you imagine (American) politicians standing resolute amidst a constitutional crisis? So the democratic party can investigate war-profiteering and pre-war intelligence and whatnot, but ultimately, our political process comes down to compromise versus principled stand. Will the democrats assert their power in the face of peer-pressure and massive financial incentive?

Gary -- far too many Democrats believe it. It puzzles me, too. Apparently quite a few people think that the war was initially wrong, but that the nti-war movement behaved badly.

It's strange to read so much anger about Kevin Drum's simple admission of reality. Did anyone really think troops would be coming home soon? If not, why this sudden outrage about another 20,000? The core reality is the same: most of establishment Washington cannot face the dismal loss of face that comes from withdrawal. The media, for the most part, is providing excellent coverage for their denial. And there are more than enough conservative Democrats to give Bush his necessary appropriations.

In 1975, most Americans intuitively understood that the Vietnam war had been a mistake. There was only modest regret about the Communist victory - we had more than enough of that, thank you. The Dolchstoss theory took several years to develop but it found resonance among many (if not most) Vietnam veterans who now had a convenient explanation for that tragedy: liberals, hippies, pinkos.

It never had to be true, it only had to resonate. And it resonated because we didn't have a catharsis afterwards. That left a vacuum to be filled with myths, propaganda, and slander. If anything, our national discourse is even LESS liberal today than it was 30 years ago. You only need to listen to Sean Hannity to already catch the outlines of the new stab-in-the-back theory. "Independents" who voted Democratic last year will still fall for future terror alerts and stories about feckless liberal girly-men. Don't kid yourselves here.

We can instruct people in the nature of the delusional nonsense that plunges us into these debacles. But as long as the pain is tolerable, the basic myth (manliness undone by feminine treachery) will prevail. I agree with Kevin Drum because it's going to take more than a failed war to wake up this nation. It may require a catastrophe.

I don't know. The Democrats took office largely because of discontent with the war, after all. The elite media has their egos but politicians have to get reelected. Enough pressure might be able to force them to force Bush to remove troops, even down to vetoing appropriations. Look at poor Lincoln Chafee: great approval rating and he still lost just because New England was mad at Bush.

Since when is it the "general consensus" that we lost Vietnam because of insufficient resources? I thought that was only the view of a few right-wing cranks. Seriously.

Enough with the paranoia about who will be blamed for Iraq. Johnson and Nixon are blamed by the majority for losing Vietnam; Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld will be blamed by the majority for losing Iraq.

One reason dems are perceived as weak is because of their permanent sense of awe before the diabolical morons on the other side.

Bomb Cambodia too. Cut off those gook supply lines.

Well if America's losing because Liberals don't have the stones for war, then it's fair to ask how many Iraqis the Army will have to kill, in order to win.

To get an honest answer, you have to go all the way to the Ayn Rand Institute, where the acolytes of Objectivism think it will take unapologetic firebombing of Dresden proportions or worse.

Not even conservatives have the stones for that, so this whole 'Liberal backstab' argument should just be relegated to STFU status.

First, the term ‘surge’ is disingenuous as it implies a short-term troop increase. By definition a ‘surge’ would imply an end-date, which this Administration has repeatedly claimed it would never adhere to – for it’s oft used reasoning that, well, militias and terrorists would simply melt into the neighborhoods and wait out the end of a troop ‘surge’. A more appropriate term would be ‘escalation.’

Second, would a 20-30k troop escalation do anything? The answer is, ‘unlikely’, for many reasons (e.g. it’s been tried without much success, it further stresses the military long-term, it can’t build infrastructure/decrease sectarian animosity/cure rampant unemployment, etc.). There only seem to be two logical choices:
a) Massive troop escalations in the 300-400k to avoid all out regional/civil war (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800983.html)
or
b) the Fareed Zakaria suggestion to redeploy our forces to strategic locations to prevent a ‘spread’ of such a civil war. (see http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/110606.html)

Finally, as Democrats learned in 2002, allowing a poorly conceived political/military plan to unfold in the hopes that its eventual failure will (at the very least) not hurt us does not work. The 2002 lesson seems to be: adhere to convictions, fight for causes and let events play out. Idly standing by and not speaking out or trying to prevent this ‘surge is both politically moronic and morally wrong if we believe it won’t work.

No matter how or when we finally give up on Iraq, there will be a core constiuency ready to accept the "stab-in-the-back" theory and the facts be damned. They are like those who insist that Nixon was framed by the Washington Post, that the Vietnam War was lost by Walter Cronkite and Jane Fonda. Getting more troops killed in Iraq in order to generate a counter argument is nonsensical as these people are beyong the reach of reason to begin with.

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

thank you.

mirc script

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
uzaktan eğitim
r10 seo yarışması
DrCetinerDotOrg - DrCetinerDotOrg
DrCetinerDotOrg
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

tyhjankssss

almanca tercüman rusça tercüman fransızca tercüman arapça tercüman farsça tercüman tercüme büroları ispanyolca tercüman almanca tercüme japonca tercüman çince tercüman bulgarca tercüman yunanca tercüman danca tercüman hollandaca tercüman ibranice tercüman italyanca tercüman korece tercüman norveççe tercüman portekizce tercüman romence tercüman sırpça tercüman ukraynaca tercüman istanbul tercüme tercüme bürosu web sitesi çevirisi ingilizce tercüman fransızca çeviri fransızca tercüme tercüme italyanca çeviri çekçe tercüme fince tercüman prestij tercüme

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye
sex

thanks

I also agree with Kevin Drum. That's a really bad idea. I wonder who's going to be blamed for this.

To a good first approximation, Obama seems to be the sort of nominee you're looking for

writes a very strong overview article on the

very good artcles .thank you admin.

adana evden eve nakliyat
ıgdır evden eve nakliyat
ardahan evden eve nakliyat
artvin evden eve nakliyat
bartın evden eve nakliyat
şırnak evden eve nakliyat
karaman evden eve nakliyat
bayburt evden eve nakliyat
aksaray evden eve nakliyat
zonguldak evden eve nakliyat
yozgat evden eve nakliyat
van evden eve nakliyat
sanlıurfa evden eve nakliyat
trabzon evden eve nakliyat
sivas evden eve nakliyat
sinop evden eve nakliyat
siirt evden eve nakliyat
samsun evden eve nakliyat
sakarya evden eve nakliyat
rize evden eve nakliyat
nigde evden eve nakliyat
mugla evden eve nakliyat
mardin evden eve nakliyat
maras evden eve nakliyat
manisa evden eve nakliyat
gümüshane evden eve nakliyat
giresun evden eve nakliyat
edirne evden eve nakliyat
çanakkale evden eve nakliyat
diyarbakir evden eve nakliyat
denizli evden eve nakliyat
çankırı evden eve nakliyat
burdur evden eve nakliyat
bolu evden eve nakliyat
adiyaman evden eve nakliyat
afyon evden eve nakliyat
agrı evden eve nakliyat
amasya evden eve nakliyat
antalya evden eve nakliyat
artvin evden eve nakliyat
balıkesir evden eve nakliyat
bilecik evden eve nakliyat
bitlis evden eve nakliyat
bursa evden eve nakliyat
çorum evden eve nakliyat
mersin evden eve nakliyat
iskenderun evden eve nakliyat
hatay evden eve nakliyat
eskişehir evden eve nakliyat
izmit evden eve nakliyat
malatya evden eve nakliyat
kütahya evden eve nakliyat
konya evden eve nakliyat
kocaeli evden eve nakliyat
kırklareli evden eve nakliyat
kayseri evden eve nakliyat
kastamonu evden eve nakliyat
kars evden eve nakliyat
erzurum evden eve nakliyat
elazig evden eve nakliyat
tunceli evden eve nakliyat
gebze evden eve nakliyat
tuzla evden eve nakliyat
pendik evden eve nakliyat
nevsehir evden eve nakliyat
muş evden eve nakliyat
osmaniye evden eve nakliyat
düzce evden eve nakliyat
karabük evden eve nakliyat
yalova evden eve nakliyat
erzincan evden eve nakliyat
istanbul evden eve nakliyat
izmir evden eve nakliyat
nikah şekeri
ankara lazer epilasyon
temizlik
halı yıkama
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
estetik
plastik cerrahi
liposakşin
botox

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu
perde
oto kiralama

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu
perde
oto kiralama

thank you

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
sex
porno
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

thank you

iç giyim iç çamaşırı jartiyer tanga string külot fantazi iç giyim erotik kostümler özel çoraplar fantazi ayakkabılar

thank you

mirc

Thank you very much for this information.

muhabbet
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek

cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc

thanks for all things

thanks for all things

thansk from 8he ;)

thanks friend for all things

thanks you...

thanks you :)

thanks...

thanks...

thanks..