Lost in the Pony Fields

Now that I've read the whole thing, the good news about the Iraq Study Group report is that it's filled with accurate observations about the situation in Iraq. As Kevin Drum writes it's "more reality-based than the Bush administration, which represents at least a little bit of progress." On the level of concepts on logic, however, it's more-or-less a sick joke. As the report outlines, the fundamental problem in Iraq is the absence of broad-based national reconciliation. Absent such reconciliation, it's impossible for the US military to provide security to the country, impossible to create effective Iraqi institutions, and impossible to isolate hard-core extremists on either side of the sectarian divide.

As the report also recognizes, the main obstacle to broad-based reconciliation is that none of the relevant parties seem to want it:

Maliki "has publicly rejected a U.S. timetable to achieve certain benchmarks, ordered the removal of blockades around Sadr City, sought more control over Iraqi security forces, and resisted U.S. requests to move forward on reconciliation or on disbanding Shiite militias."
Sistani, by contrast, "has encouraged a unified Shia bloc with moderated aims within a unified Iraq" but his "influence may be waning, as his words have not succeeded in preventing intra-Shia violence or retaliation against Sunnis."
Hakin's SCIRI is "the largest and most organized Shia political party" and it "seeks the creation of an autonomous Shia region comprising nine provinces in the south."
Sunni Arabs, meanwhile "reject a federal, decentralized Iraq and do not see a Sunni autonomous region as feasible for themselves."
Tariq al-Hashimi of the Iraqi Islamic Party "opposes the formation of autonomous regions" and demands "a reversal of de-Baathification, and the removal of Shiite militia fighters from the Iraqi security forces."
Sheikh Harith al-Dari "is the head of the Muslim Scholars Association, the most influential Sunni organization in Iraq" and what's more "A warrant was recently issued for his arrest for inciting violence and terrorism, an act that sparked bitter Sunni protests across Iraq."
Muqtada al-Sadr is "building a political party that controls basic services within the government and an armed militia outside of the government."

So in review, the most conciliation-oriented Shiite figure is losing influence. The Shiite head of government has refused to disband militias. That may be because the heads of the two most influential Shiite organizations in the country are militia leaders. At least one of them has put the creation of autonomous regions as the centerpiece of his political agenda. One of the two most influential Sunni political leaders has put preventing the creation of such regions as the centerpiece of his political agenda. The other major Sunni political leader is wanted for arrest by the Shiite-dominated government.

The Kurds play relatively little role in this mess, but they "insisted that the constitution require a popular referendum by December 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk can formally join the Kurdish administered region" and the ISG remarks that "the risks of further violence sparked by a Kirkuk referendum are great."

Last but by no means least, according to the ISG "Iraq’s leaders often claim that they do not want a division of the country, but we found that key Shia and Kurdish leaders have little commitment to national reconciliation . . . many of Iraq’s most powerful and well-positioned leaders are not working toward a united Iraq."

To make a long story short, these observations render virtually all of the ISG's recommendations moot. Absent political reconciliation, none of this stuff about embedding someone here, or training someone there is going to accomplish anything. And national reconciliation hasn't been forthcoming because the key people aren't committed to it. Through absolutely no fault of the ISG membership -- there simply isn't very much to be done on this front -- the section on "Steps for the United States to Take on Behalf of National Reconciliation" is incredibly thin gruel:

RECOMMENDATION 34: The question of the future U.S. force presence must be on the table for discussion as the national reconciliation dialogue takes place. Its inclusion will increase the likelihood of participation by insurgents and militia leaders, and thereby increase the possibilities for success.
RECOMMENDATION 35: The United States must make active efforts to engage all parties in Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda. The United States must find a way to talk to Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and militia and insurgent leaders.

RECOMMENDATION 36: The United States should encourage dialogue between sectarian communities, as outlined in the New Diplomatic Offensive above. It should press religious leaders inside and outside Iraq to speak out on behalf of peace and reconciliation.

RECOMMENDATION 37: Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington by either the executive or the legislative branch.

I just don't think there's anything here. Recommendations 34, 35, and 37 are all good ideas and it's conceivable that had they been implemented at some point in 2003-2004 they would have improved things. At this point, however, none of them speak to the core issue: The Iraqis. In terms of getting the Iraqis to agree to something -- which is the key thing to do -- all they have is asking other countries to ask Iraqis to agree, and asking "religious leaders inside and outside Iraq" to ask Iraqis to agree.

I don't blame the ISG for not having any smarter ideas about this; I don't have any smarter ideas either. But the whole plan founders on this point. Nothing is worth doing absent national reconciliation and nobody knows how to create it.

12/6/06 1:53PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Does the report directly take on the question of why it's a good idea to spend almost $100 billion per year to keep 140,000 U.S. troops in the country, killing and getting killed, etc.? Do they even raise the issue of whether there is really anything we can do here?

Posted by: MQ on December 6, 2006 02:42 PM

We could simply leave though, which is what John Murtha wanted to do more than a bloody bloody year ago.

Posted by: Jennifer on December 6, 2006 02:49 PM

I don't claim to be an authority on military strategy, or much else for that matter, but whereas I agree with Matt that the sectarian civil war remains the elephant in the room (that virtually none of the conservative prognosticators let alone the Bush administration itself seems willing to grapple with) I'm not entirely convinced that there is not a political and military solution to this problem (which in my view *is* the problem in Iraq, not the ongoing insurgency).

I was only being half-facetious a thread or few back when I said America was willing to offend the Sunnis by levelling their cities but unwilling to offend them by compelling the Iraqi government to declare the country a loose federation. Such a declaration (with or without the consent of the Sunnis) could establish the political framework for a far reaching change in military tactics, transitioning the American presence from counterinsurgency to humanitarian intervention. Washington would provide monetary assistance to ethnic and religious minorities wishing to relocate themselves and their families to respective majority zones, and coalition forces would provide security for those relocations. More generally, military efforts would be refocused on separating factions, and not trying to capture and hold towns and neighborhoods held by forces unfriendly to America's presence in the country. In a worst case scenario where reconciliation became impossible, but significant humanitarian relcoation was taking place, you would have the political process and facts on the ground suitable for the ultimate partition of Iraq.

Had America intervened earlier in the former Yugoslavia something similiar may have been tried.

Posted by: Linus on December 6, 2006 03:26 PM

The only problem with this post is that it doesn't include the words, "There's the rub."

Posted by: minderbender on December 6, 2006 03:43 PM

I'm genuinely curious to know if AI can spot any problems with this analysis.

Posted by: julian on December 6, 2006 03:44 PM

less exciting the lewinsky report for sure. not gripping narrative....

Posted by: chet snicker on December 6, 2006 03:56 PM

At Play in the Pony Fields of the Lord?

$100 billion a year is over twice as much as Iraq's $46 billion a year GDP...and $30 billion of that GDP is oil revenue.

So, we're spending over 6 times Iraq's non-oil economy of about $16 billion a year to keep 140,000 possibly impotent troops there.

How come so little of our spending is working its way into the local economy?

If we pulled out the troops and just doled out the $100 billion to Iraqi civilians...we'd triple their per capita GDP.

I can't help but think that no American troops plus everyone three times wealthier would lead to a much more stable Iraq.

Posted by: alphie on December 6, 2006 04:09 PM

Linus:

"Humanitarian" intervention? "Monitary assistance" to ethnic groups willing to "relocate"? You're just stringing innocuous sounding euhemisms together and jibberish is the result. To any other thread commenters naive enough to give these idiocies a fair hearing: picture a thousand Mogadishus. To Linus: you're a warmonger. Enlist already and go help with the "humanitarian relocations", I guess when you've learned to say "roommate wanted" in Arabic.

Posted by: brendan on December 6, 2006 04:27 PM

Linus: " Such a declaration (with or without the consent of the Sunnis) could establish the political framework for a far reaching change in military tactics, transitioning the American presence from counterinsurgency to humanitarian intervention."

This has been discussed by Juan Cole. The takeaway is that this would involve the 'ethnic cleansing' of a couple million people. In addition, it'd be an even sweeter recuiting basis for Al Qaida than the current situation.

Posted by: Barry on December 6, 2006 04:34 PM

What am I saying, "Picture a thousand Mogadishus"? Picture Iraq.

Posted by: brendan on December 6, 2006 04:35 PM

Barry:

"Linus" is a lot like "Al" on another thread. He's taken the Israeli position that with the Iraqi state obliterated, it's time to go after Iran and Hezbollah.

Posted by: brendan on December 6, 2006 04:36 PM

Linus, Barry:

I apologize. Linus is actually arguing the opposite of Al. He seems to want to take the Shiite side in a genocidal civil war. Or something. He just wants what's good for everybody. Reconciliation, relocation, that kind of...stuff.

Posted by: brendan on December 6, 2006 04:45 PM

The sad truth is this is more than likely going to turn into a region-wide war between Sunni and Shi'ite. Just do some reading on what is going on from Lebanon to Iran, it's not good at all and relatively easy to connect the dots.

No amount of political maneuverings, study groups, or troops is going to stop this. It's 1,000+ years in the making. Shi'ite have been dominated by the Sunni for a long time and they are now starting to feel it's their turn.

Maybe it's best we just step aside because it's basically out of our hands, if it ever was. It's sad, very sad, but true.

Posted by: Jacey on December 6, 2006 06:04 PM

I'm genuinely curious to know if AI can spot any problems with this analysis.

If this is directed at me (my moniker is Al as in Al Gore, not AI as in artificial intelligence): not having read the report, the answer is no, I don't see any problems with Matthew's analysis - I think Matthew is right. It's going to take a lot of political reconciliation among the parties. Can they do it? I have no idea - there are a lot of deat-seated differences among the sides; it's going to take a lot - a LOT - longer than the next year or two for Iraq to be a non-dysfunctional society. And while we can have a small amount of influence, most of that is up to the Iraqis. The most we can do is help keep a lid on the violence, and train institutions (Army, Police) that will keep a lid on the violence after we leave.

But I don't see why we ought not try to effect political reconciliation. After all, in every other instance, Matthew believes that sitting down and negotiating will permit everyone to get along hunky dory - North Korea, Iran, etc. That means retaining our influence in country; it means training the institutions that help reconciliation; it means continued committment of our policymakers.

Posted by: Al on December 6, 2006 06:04 PM

"Linus" is a lot like "Al" on another thread. He's taken the Israeli position that with the Iraqi state obliterated, it's time to go after Iran and Hezbollah.

I didn't take that position at all. All I did was question Matthew's apparent assumption that an alliance with the Sunnis would mean an alliance with OBL and Saddam. I have no idea which side (if any) it would be better to be on.

Posted by: Al on December 6, 2006 06:06 PM

Of course, the usual way of generating some national spirit and reconciliation of feuding factions is to present them with a common threat to face. Perhaps if we invade the country and start killing the inhabitants .... or, perhaps, start dropping nukes on Iraqi towns? or some other equally demented alternative?

Posted by: firefall on December 6, 2006 06:10 PM

"I apologize. Linus is actually arguing the opposite of Al. He seems to want to take the Shiite side in a genocidal civil war. Or something. He just wants what's good for everybody. Reconciliation, relocation, that kind of...stuff."

I could be really mean and say that Democrats just want to wash their hands of Iraq and allow what is almost certainly a civil war to become a genocidal civil war to prove they were right all along and Republicans and others who supported the war from the outset are very bad and awful people, or would that demean the purity of the Democratic Party's newfound isolationism? Vive Tommy Jefferson, and all that.

The Clinton administration (and the Europeans) didn't intervene sooner in the Balkans because that would've meant managing the relocation of ethnic and religious minorities ourselves, which would've been risky and costly and probably not supported by Republicans in Congress or the American people. So instead we let the Yugoslavs play musical chairs themselves, and they did it their own special way. As you know it was called ethnic cleansing.

And if Democrats get their way, and America withdraws, that will be the only euphemism on anyone's tongue. America has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, even if the state of Iraq ceases to exist in the next ten years.

Posted by: Linus on December 6, 2006 06:46 PM

All these years I thought it was "AI". Weird.

Posted by: Julian on December 6, 2006 06:52 PM

Then again, the level of violence in Iraq could fall off considerably if American troops were withdrawn.

After all, we're the ones who caused the violence to begin in the first place...

You really have to question the political motives of the people who say violence will actually increase if we pull our troops out.

They tend to be the same people who downplay civilian deaths in Iraq and also accept high civilian deaths as just a cost of doing military business.

Posted by: alphie on December 6, 2006 06:54 PM

Really? Wow. I think that sort of outrage and $2 will get you a small cup of coffee.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on December 6, 2006 07:22 PM

Lets just go down that list again in a less tendentious way:
(1) Maliki opposed a US-imposed set of deadlines
(2) Sistani can no longer stop the violence the way Moses opened the Red Sea
(3) Hakim is for a big federal region in the South
(4) Sunnis generally are against federalism
(5) Hashimi wants de-de-Baathification and removal of Shiite militia members from state law-enforcement
(6) The Dhari "arrest" warrant turned into an investigation subpoena, and in any event this was clearly political and not your normal arrest warrantfor a criminal, as your italics seem to suggest
(7) Moqtada: Runs a militia outside of government

How exactly do you get from there to "none of the relevant parties seem to want [national reconciliation]"? Relevant history includes (1) The US allied with Shiite militias in 2003 to help fight Sunnis, which of course went quite a long way to promote national unity; (2) The US is now supporting Sunni armed groups, for instance in Anbar province, which is also an excellent way of reassuring the Shiites and knitting the nation together. (3) The biggest problem bringing Sunni resistance groups into a national reconciliation process is the US refusal to set a timetable for withdrawal; (4) Everybody agrees there should be a generous amnesty, but this would be politically unpopular in the US (as well as in Iraq).

You spend a few minutes with a report and conclude that "none of the relevant parties" cares about his country, when in fact many of the people you named are nationalists to begin with and are spilling their guts for their country. What's the point ?

Posted by: Badger on December 6, 2006 08:34 PM

It is a charming illusion to think that if we just had a national reconciliation in Iraq and everyone sang kumbaya, everything would be hunky dory.

In the most fundamental way, the insurgency and chaotic "civil war" is a product, not of the invasion and toppling of Saddam, per se, but, rather, a failure of the Reconstruction.

Today, Iraq is a country, where the average age is about 19 -- there are lots and lots of very young men about. It is a country where the unemployment rate is in the neighborhood of 40-50%. It is a country, which is awash with munitions and weapons. It is a country without adequate infrastructure to generate and distribute electricity or potable water, or sewage. It is a country, from which most educated professionals, if they are not dead, have fled. These are the facts, more than sectarian issues and disputes, which form the foundation for civil war. It is simply not possible for a State to exist in such a decrepit country, possessed of such oil wealth, without violently oppressing the mass of people.

A country with no infrastructure and no educated class has no economy; it is and can only be a prison for those, who live there, and there is now a battle going on for control of the prison, which just happens to come with the unusual perk of the proceeds from enormous oil wealth.

Focusing analytic attention on strategies for achieving a "reconciliation" are a waste of time, the equivalent of idly looking for a pony. It is just a continuation of the same madness, which led the Bush Administration to conclude that it could invade Iraq with no plan for what came after, and then fritter away in corruption, the pitiful resources they did devote to building Iraq into a functioning country.

The Reconstruction failed, and Iraq cannot function as modern economy or a democracy. Not going to happen. Now we have to watch the horrifically violent process by which anarchy is turned into a vicious authoritarian dictatorship.

Gates and Negroponte, having cut their teeth on death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua, may well think that they can "contribute" to that process. If so, I hope someone takes notes, so that we can hang the bastards, later.

Posted by: Bruce Wilder on December 6, 2006 08:37 PM

Matt, when did you begin incorporating "ponies" into everything you wrote? Is this some new liberal blogger meme?

Posted by: Alex on December 6, 2006 09:43 PM

"Really? Wow. I think that sort of outrage and $2 will get you a small cup of coffee."

Perhaps, but how serious do you suppose the Democratic Congress will be about pressing for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq?

I don't expect to see a major change in policy until January of 2009 at least.

Posted by: Linus on December 6, 2006 09:58 PM

""Linus" is a lot like "Al" on another thread. He's taken the Israeli position that with the Iraqi state obliterated, it's time to go after Iran and Hezbollah."

I think what I said was that I expect a war with Iran would probably end the same way I expect the war in Iraq to end, as in an anti-American insurgency followed by a sectarian civil war (between Persians, Azeris, and Kurds), and the ultimate partition of the country along sectarian lines. That civil war may happen without American intervention (just as it may have happened in Iraq), and Tehran is not exactly doing everything in its power (as in focusing on economic development rather than hanging people in public for homosexual acts) to avoid that fate.

This doesn't mean that Iran's nuclear weapons program is not a danger to America and the West, and that a war with Iran isn't going to happen (despite what anyone thinks about the matter).

As for Israel, it isn't entirely irrational for a people already subject to one genocide to fear that they may be subject to another one. On the other hand, as the occupying power of the West Bank and the de facto occupying power of Gaza Israel has a responsibility to provide for the humanitarian welfare and economic development of the territories. For rather childish reasons, Israel has not lived up to its obligations in this regard.

Posted by: Linus on December 6, 2006 10:14 PM

I think you are overgeneralizing the similarities between Iran and Iraq regarding sectarian differences. Iranian nationalism is quite strong given its 2500 year history, unlike cobbled together Iraq. Iranian Kurds, Azeris, Armenians and others consider themselves Iranian first, differing ethnicities notwithstanding. Iran won't end up in any kind of civil war if invaded, but then again, there is exactly zero chance of Iran being bombed, no matter what Cheney thinks, so I'm not sure why I'm even bringing up the point.

Posted by: Randomguy on December 7, 2006 12:48 AM

Matt, when did you begin incorporating "ponies" into everything you wrote? Is this some new liberal blogger meme?

No, it's an old liberal blogger meme.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on December 7, 2006 01:31 AM

"Iranian nationalism is quite strong given its 2500 year history, unlike cobbled together Iraq."

That's the conventional wisdom. It used to be my conventional wisdom.

For at least the last two to three decades there has been a growing Azeri nationalist movement, complete with violent street protests and random outbreaks of political violence, tortured and imprisoned leaders, and so on. These things don't mostly get reported in the western press because there are few western journalists in the country, and tight controls on those who are there.

And of course the small Kurdish minority would be liable to join greater Kurdistan in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.

The golden rule of the post-Cold War era is that states which can break up probably will.

Posted by: Linus on December 7, 2006 12:04 PM

A question to which I haven't found an answer is, against whom are US troops fighting? Are we serving the interests of the Maliki state, on the basis that they're officially recognised by Washington? Or are we attacking people willy-nilly and calling them Al Qaeda?

The ISG seemed to me to be focused on finding out what all these parties want. That's just... sensible.

Judging by the right-wing reaction, they're labelling ISG as Democratic (which'll certainly help in 2008), meaning Bush won't even read it. Why? Because Bush seems only concerned with enforcing his will on others--we're so mighty that it doesn't matter what these parties want, because we're going to get what we want.

Sadly, I think we're going to have to impeach Bush if we want to accomplish anything at all, because I think Bush has completely lost his mind.

Oh, and 61% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US forces. Hadda be playing on a fucking jukebox.

Posted by: Luke on December 7, 2006 12:06 PM

As it turns out, the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement has a website in English.

Posted by: Linus on December 7, 2006 12:16 PM

Machiavelli provides the answer. Withdrawal from Anbar -- and an American military refusal to intervene there -- will allow development of a Sunni military presence sufficiently powerful to force the Shiites to the negotiating table AND rid Iraq of al-qaeda, which after all is rather tolerated than embraced by the Sunni.

Posted by: Ranacuajo on December 7, 2006 02:27 PM

Sohbet, World

Posted by: Sohbet on October 8, 2007 08:19 AM

Chat

Posted by: Chat on October 8, 2007 08:20 AM

Sohbetchat

Posted by: Sohbetchat on October 8, 2007 08:21 AM

Haberler

Posted by: Haber on October 8, 2007 08:22 AM

Canli Sohbet

Posted by: Canli Sohbet on October 8, 2007 08:22 AM

Birdiyar

Posted by: Birdiyar on October 8, 2007 08:23 AM

Sohbet Sitesi

Posted by: Sohbet Siteleri on October 8, 2007 08:23 AM

Sohbetyap

Posted by: Sohbetyap on October 8, 2007 08:24 AM

Güzel Sözler

Posted by: Güzel Sözler on October 8, 2007 08:25 AM

Canlı SOhbet

Posted by: Canlı Sohbet on October 8, 2007 08:25 AM

hotel turkey

Posted by: arkadas on October 8, 2007 09:14 AM

news turkey

Posted by: habergunluk.com on October 8, 2007 09:15 AM

Sohbet siteleri

Posted by: Sohbet Siteleri on October 8, 2007 12:34 PM

Canlı Sohbet

Posted by: Canlı Sohbet on October 8, 2007 12:36 PM

Sohbet Siteleri,Chat

Posted by: Chat on October 19, 2007 04:17 PM

Sohbet

Posted by: Sohbet on October 19, 2007 04:18 PM

Chat Siteleri

Posted by: Chat Siteleri on October 19, 2007 04:18 PM

Chat Sitesi

Posted by: Chat Sitesi on October 19, 2007 04:19 PM

Sohbet Odaları

Posted by: Sohbet odaları on October 19, 2007 04:20 PM

Sohbet Odası

Posted by: Sohbet Odası on October 19, 2007 04:20 PM

Canlı Sohbet

Posted by: Canlı Sohbet on October 19, 2007 04:21 PM

Sohbet Kanalları

Posted by: Sohbet Kanalları on October 19, 2007 04:22 PM

Sohbet Kanalı

Posted by: Sohbet Kanalı on October 19, 2007 04:23 PM

Chat Kanalı

Posted by: chat kanalı on October 19, 2007 04:23 PM

Sohbet
almanya sohbet
izmir sohbet
msn sohbet
Sohbet odaları
Chat
chat siteleri
free CHAT
sohbet siteleri

- Alt Linkler - * sohbet *

Kelebek Sohbet
Liselikızlar
ingiltere Sohbet
islam sohbet
islamkent
Arkadaş
Dost Chat
Chat Sohbet
Reklam ver
Avrupa Chat
Yazılı Sohbet
Yazgülü
Bolsohbet
izmir sohbet
Hollanda sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohpet
sohbet.com
msn sohbet
mynet sohbet
cet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline

- Alt Linkler - * Chat *

maynet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline
seslichat

- Yeniler -

Gurbet
Sevgi
Ask
antalya sohbet
sex sohbet
girl

- Amsalak Linkler -

Komik Videolar
Komik vidiyolar
bedava Videolar

her hangi bir sorun oldugunda pm atınız ...

- Bglog - * webmaster blog *

webmaster
komik blog
komik
komik Resimler
komik yazılar
komik videolar
komik fıkralar

- Sohbet5.Net -

Sohbet
chat

girl

hosting

Posted by: sohbet siteleri on October 25, 2007 04:45 PM

thanks

Posted by: chat on November 12, 2007 11:20 AM

thanks all

Posted by: sohbet on November 12, 2007 11:21 AM

thanks ;)

Posted by: komik video on November 12, 2007 11:21 AM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 16, 2007 01:18 PM

islamsohbeti
Kurtlar Vadisi
bedava oyun
sohbet
89
sohbet
video izle
komik video
aşk şiirleri
sohbet
kelebek indir
avrupa sohbet

Posted by: Sohbet on November 18, 2007 04:14 PM

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
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Posted by: muhabbet on November 24, 2007 09:39 AM

Thanks for very interesting article like

Posted by: forum on November 27, 2007 06:38 PM

thnask admin....

Posted by: www.nevruzbaba.com on November 29, 2007 05:57 AM

Great...

www.1l1.org

Posted by: Beas on December 8, 2007 06:09 AM

tnx

Posted by: seks shop on December 13, 2007 05:34 PM

thanks a lot

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on December 21, 2007 05:26 PM

Thank you...

Posted by: Bork on December 28, 2007 02:26 AM

iddaa sonucları

Posted by: iddaa sonuclari on December 31, 2007 05:40 AM

Thank you

Posted by: Cla on January 1, 2008 06:08 AM

Good

Posted by: sanne on January 1, 2008 06:09 AM

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

Posted by: sex shop on January 1, 2008 08:00 AM

Even if it feels inadequate in the light of such devastation here are a few (mostly U.S. based) organizations through which you can help:

Posted by: aşk on January 6, 2008 06:38 PM

Even if it feels inadequate in the light of such devastation here are a few (mostly U.S. based) organizations through which you can help:
Posted by: aşk on January 6, 2008 06:38 PM

Posted by: video on January 6, 2008 06:40 PM