Clinton's Perpetual War
I've gone back and forth on this a bit, but John Judis has me convinced that Hillary Clinton's forward-looking position on the Iraq War is worse than the alternatives. First, her position:
As she recounts in her interview, her solution to Iraq rests partly on a "very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on the regional and international front." This would include "a track with Syria and a track with Iran." But the main part of the strategy would be its military dimension. While Clinton does not favor having U.S troops intervene in an Iraqi civil war, she would retain a significant force in Iraq. This force would try to "contain the extremists," "help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north," "provide logistical support, air support, training support" to the Iraqi government, and try "to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq."Clinton's idea of a residual occupying force goes well beyond that of the recent Senate resolution. The resolution provides for a "limited number" of troops after the pullout date, which would be devoted to training and to "targeted counterterrorism operations." By contrast, Clinton's force would have larger geopolitical responsibilities, including the restraint of Iranian power. Clinton says she doesn't know how many U.S. troops her plan would require, or how many military bases would be required to house them. But Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy, who conducted the interview, noted that former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, who has developed a strikingly similar plan, estimates that 75,000 American troops would be needed to carry his plan out. That's about half of the current force stationed in Iraq.
Initially, Clinton's plan differs from what Bush is doing. While Bush is still seeking victory over Iraqi insurgents, Clinton would withdraw from urban centers and from the civil war that is raging. But in its broader objectives, Clinton's plan is not dramatically different from that of the Bush administration. The White House certainly isn't expecting to maintain 160,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, but it is planning a long-term occupation anchored in what the Pentagon has described as "enduring bases." As Spencer Ackerman has shown, it continues to construct these huge, imposing bases. Clinton's residual army, like Bush's, would not merely provide training to the Iraqis in the manner, say, that some European countries have done. The remaining force would have a larger geopolitical mission of keeping Iraq in the American orbit and away from either Al Qaeda or Iran. Their presence in bases would be reminiscent to that of the forces that the United States stationed in Cuba after 1901 or the British stationed in Iraq after 1921-- after they had abandoned colonialism for an informal imperial approach.
I think the right thing to say is that the consensus Democratic plan, and variants on it like Barack Obama's proposal, are consistent with Clinton's more-spelled-out vision, but not the same as it. The literal text of Obama's proposal, in short, doesn't rule out something as grandiose as what Clinton's proposed, but it also doesn't commit him to it and there's no particular reason to think that he or Edwards or anyone else means the same thing that Clinton means. The alternative:
Similarly, if the United States wants to bring stability to Iraq and to the region, it will have to forego any hint of an imperial ambition inside Iraq . This means dismantling its military bases and allowing the Iraqis to develop their own oil industry. It will have to subordinate its military to its diplomatic policy and focus on getting Iraq's neighbors to take responsibility for stability in the region and for marginalizing Al Qaeda--an objective on which Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia should be able to agree. It's not clear if the U.S. will be able to assemble a multinational force that could carry out training and combat terrorism. But as American experience has already shown, a necessary condition of assembling such a force will be a commitment by the United States to cease playing the role of a dominant occupying power.Many policy experts in Washington, including Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, favor this kind of approach. It enjoys adherents at most of the left-center think tanks. But it has not been embraced by Capitol Hill and the White House. Only two presidential hopefuls, retired General Wesley Clark and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, clearly support it, and neither of them are declared candidates. The leading Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, favors an even more extreme version of Bush's policy. (If Clinton is Bush lite, McCain is Bush heavy.)
Right. Edwards and Obama right now are pretty light on where they stand as to these questions, but I'd sure like to know.
Comments
We are staying in Iraq with a large force, large bases and large stores of equipment for a long long time. We will never have another chance to establish such a force on the ground in the Gulf. To establish a base of operations in the redion was one of the prime reasons we went in. If an entire country had to be sacrifice so be it. It was a small price to pay, by us.
There will be some sort of military action with Iran before Bush leaves office to reinforce the need for that force. Preferably with some American casualties so an official if nebulous state of war between us will exist.
Hillary's mention of containing Iran is a key here and it is why she is now the official acceptable Dem candidate.
"Edwards and Obama right now are pretty light on where they stand as to these questions, but I'd sure like to know."
Of course, neither is going to spell out precisely what they are going to do anymore than Clinton will. (Judis is extrapolating pretty wildly in the case of HRC, here...)
At the end of the day, in electing a President in the foreign policy realm, our decisions come to down to judging the character of the candidates. George Bush ran for the WH promising a more humble foreign policy, y'know.
If Americans had been dropped into the Garden of Eden pre-fall from grace they still would have found reason to napalm the fruit groves and imprison Adam and Eve for unspecified crimes against the state. No amount of innocence or lack of threat is enough to thwart us from wanting to wage war. Plug in a name, a candidate, an officeholder. They all will want to kill people and blow things up in perpetuity. It doesn't matter whether it's Hillary, Obama or Rudy. Which ever one wins in '08 they're going to wage war with someone.
This type of strategy was also proposed by Danial Pipes several months ago. The object is to get American troops out of the currently raging civil war in Baghdad and its environs. Personally, I would go beyond that and withdraw all US forces to Kurdistan where they would be welcome as they would provide protection against any attempt by the other two Iraqi factions to intervene there. The point is to recognize that there are 3 countries making up Iraq with the inhabitants within each country antagonistic to the inhabitants of the other 2.
Any candidate who explicitly opposes something like Clinton's "plan" will encounter the all-out resistance of the entire military/defense-procurement/security-state/oil-industry complex that runs foreign policy in this country.
Of course Hillar Clinton has spelled out precisely what she will do which is to occupy Iraq through her presidency (a presidency she will not win). No matter the death and wounding and destruction and cost, Clinton will keep us in Iraq because she has told us she will do so.
Six Clinton-plans, half-dozen Obama-plans, one hundred and eleven Edwards-plans in base two. Looks like we're gonna have a significant military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future.
Hillary Clinton's decision to keep American troops in Iraq if she is elected president will insure that she loses, and will risk ruining the Democratic Party's gains if she gains the nomination. Barack Obama or John Edwards will surely take us from Iraq and fast. Pay attention to how destructive and self-destructive the surge has been so far. We have to leave Iraq.
I believe one very significant difference between Obama and Clinton in the area of Middle East policy is the importance they attach to the diplomatic track in dealing with Iran. Obama has held direct diplomacy out as a significant component of his approach. For Clinton, there are as yet no serious signals of plans to achieve anything of substance through the diplomatic channel.
In both a Senate floor speech and her Aipac speech, Clinton offered her motives for pursuing any sort of talks with Iran: (i) to gather intelligence, and (ii) to create the appearance of having done everything possible, should future action be required. I don't think Clinton is really serious about talks leading to any kind of resolution. Nor does she speak for people who really want any kind of resolution of the sort that talks could deliver. She sees talks as only a necessary prelude to conflict, or a tool of brinkmanship and containment.
Iran is Iraq's neighbor, and as Iraq achieves some stability in some of its regions, we can expect Iranian commercial and financial ties inside Iraq to grow. In fact, economic investment by a country's neighbors would generally be seen as conducive to stability. So when Clinton says she wants to "prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq," what precisely does she mean? How much influence would she regard as too much influence? And how precisely does she propose to check that influence? What role do the military bases play in her plan?
No; with Obama or Edwards we will be out of Iraq in a matter of months. Occupying Iraq is draining us and destroying Iraq, and Obama and Edwards know that and will bring us out and "fast."
No; with Obama or Edwards we will be out of Iraq in a matter of months. Occupying Iraq is draining us and destroying Iraq, and Obama and Edwards know that and will bring us out and "fast."
Even if that is their present intention, I believe this will prove very difficult for both of them. Of course, it depends what you mean by "out."
To establish a base of operations in the redion was one of the prime reasons we went in. If an entire country had to be sacrifice so be it. It was a small price to pay, by us.
Plug in a name, a candidate, an officeholder. They all will want to kill people and blow things up in perpetuity.
This kind of talk, over-the-top and pseudo-Marxist as it is, has a more level-headed corollary: that the next president will be presented with a status quo that will be very difficult to change. There will be 100k+ troops in Iraq, still getting shot at, and still making "progress," but not moving any closer to "victory," to use the political euphamisms of the day.
Thus, while no U.S. president has a thirst for blood or wants to sacrafice Arab nations for a strategic foothold, I think you're likely to see a plan much like Clinton's in the post-2009 world, no matter who is elected. Poltically, it's far easier to make a cosmetic withdrawal, perhaps up to 50% of the troop level, but still leave lots of GIs in there and build large "superbases" to house them, than to make any more radical moves.
This is a fuction of mismanagement and blundering on the part of the current administration, of course, but I really don't see any president using his/her first term political capital to pull off a strategically and morally dicey withdrawal of all forces from Iraq. The Clinton plan, in other words, will carry the day no matter who is the next president (unless it's McCain, and then it's the Bush plan heavy, as mentioned above).
Hillary's call to keep American bases in Iraq won't insure her loss because the GOP candiate will be saying the same thing. If by some odd circumstance an Edwards or Obama take the nomination and explicitly call for total withdrawl, an unlikly proposition on both counts, then things will be very interesting. For at that point they will be representing a clearly popular position that the right won't accept. So to avoid bloodshed and political upheaval it is in the interests of everyone to take this issue off the table which is why Hillary is now the choice.
"Similarly, if the United States wants to bring stability to Iraq and to the region, it will have to forego any hint of an imperial ambition inside Iraq . This means dismantling its military bases and allowing the Iraqis to develop their own oil industry. It will have to subordinate its military to its diplomatic policy and focus on getting Iraq's neighbors to take responsibility for stability in the region and for marginalizing Al Qaeda--an objective on which Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia should be able to agree. It's not clear if the U.S. will be able to assemble a multinational force that could carry out training and combat terrorism. But as American experience has already shown, a necessary condition of assembling such a force will be a commitment by the United States to cease playing the role of a dominant occupying power."
I'm quoting this para just to make sure which paragraph I'm referring to. What is the evidence that this is Wes Clark's and Hagel's position? I'd like to think it's their position, but I don't recall Clark stating his position on Iraq in such emphatic terms. I think it would be a good thing to read Judis's paragraph to all the presidential candidates and see if they agree with it, or alternatively see what about it they disagree with.
Polls showing a majority of Americans favoring a withdrawal of some sort from Iraq are deceiving. Republicans will always be poised to portray Dems/liberals/The Left as having "lost" any particular conflict (see Vietnam). Of course whipping up such sentiment is difficult until in fact said conflict can be persuasively portrayed as "lost". Right now the FUBAR that is Iraq is a war our citizens have scant comprehension of. Once it's apparent we can't "win" and may have actually got our asses kicked in some measure anything short of dropping nukes by those in power will be viewed as surrender. If you're a Dem Prez when the citizenry arrives at that collective conclusion then YOU'VE lost the war. FoxNews, Rush, Hannity and every Republican officeholder, lobbyist and political operative will zealously assert it as fact. Vietnam redux. The goddamned liberals lost the war. It's coming, especially if a Dem wins the presidency in '08. Iraq can't be won, all that's left to sort out now is who gets blamed for it. That's a battle Republicans will very seriously set about claiming as a victory.
I’m a big fan of Judis’s book, but based on the Matt's excerpt it seems like he’s just pulling stuff out of thin air here. If you read the New York Times interview he refers to, Hillary says nothing that supports what Judis is saying about oil, permanent bases, etc. In fact, Clinton says that she supports the goal of getting all of our troops out in one year. She also says this:
Doesn’t sound all that hawkish to me…
No permanent bases!
Look, this is what caused 9/11. Arabs don't want to be occupied. If Saudi Arabia was half as much of a democracy as the Philippines* we'd have been voted out of there before 9/11. Same with Iraq. We're not wanted. We should just go. We've got to drop the neocon fantasy of turning Iraq into Germany or Japan. For a whole host of cultural and historical reasons it's not going to happen. The only reason Germany and Japan accepted long-term military occupation was because of the Soviet threat. On the flip side Arab countries have, oh, seven hundred years or so of colonial occupation. They're just not having it anymore.
None of the major states in the region are going to allow another to become a regional hegemon. If they're in trouble they'll beg for our help. We're in no danger of a regional superpower emerging.
We need to settle for Kenya, Tanzania, or Madagascar and be done with it. They're only a couple days sail away from the Persian Gulf.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay
"I’m a big fan of Judis’s book, but based on the Matt's excerpt it seems like he’s just pulling stuff out of thin air here."
Yup. I'm also a big fan of Judis, but all of his coverage of the '08 candidates (not just this one hit at HRC) has been only tenuously connected to reality.
"We need to settle for Kenya, Tanzania, or Madagascar and be done with it. They're only a couple days sail away from the Persian Gulf."
Posted by: chris on March 30, 2007 02:00 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, that'll do it. No indigent populations there that'll make trouble for us. I visited Madagascar once. There was a big banner hanging inside the main airline terminal. "EMPIRES & FOREIGN ARMIES WELCOME HERE!!" it read as I recall.
Well, I did say "or." You know, somebody who wants the rent we would pay them. We have a deal with Vietnam right now to rent airfields when we need them.
"We need to settle for Kenya, Tanzania, or Madagascar and be done with it. They're only a couple days sail away from the Persian Gulf."
What about Quatar? Centcom is based there. In fact, the potentate of that little state built us a nice big airfield so we would put a base there. I bet the Kurds would welcome a big fat airbase in northern Iraq as well, which would offer convenient flying distance to Syria or Iran should the need arise.
Clinton's plan is not dramatically different from that of the Bush administration. (Judis)
Clinton's plan isn't dramatically different from anyone's plan. She's promising everything to everyone. Judis is just emphasizing the part he dislikes. I've felt annoyed and emphasized it that way too. But who knows what she'll really do? I think she'll get nearly all the troops out of Iraq, because all the voters want them out, but she'll allow the Pentagon nuts to do whatever minor meddling they want to do, probably a bunch of pointless revenge stuff. And I suppose if some other idea gets popular somehow, she'll go along with that too. Maybe a little air support for some pet Kurds trying to secede from Iran. And of course she'll sound reasonable making speeches at some cool Middle Eastern conferences with lots of exotic dignitaries. I guess all that is good enough for me. I don't care if we have small pointless wars. I just don't like the big pointless wars.
"But who knows what she'll really do? I think she'll get nearly all the troops out of Iraq ... I guess all that is good enough for me. ... I just don't like the big pointless wars."
While I am sympathetic to your general assessment, the problem is that she'll need to win a November election to be able to do any of that. And I think she's far less likely to win a November election than Edwards.
And if she loses the general, we could well be looking at more big pointless wars.
I don't know where the double standards end and the misogyny begins....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Nz5UB-UCw
Strikes me as a 500-mile drive on a 1/4 tank of facts. It don't quite make it to where it's aimin' for.
I'll wait til I hear more from her--and the other candidates--during the actual campaign, and debates, before I draw those kinds of conclusions.
I would go with Susan. She sounds like my mother too Besides it's plain common sense
"I’m a big fan of Judis’s book, but based on the Matt's excerpt it seems like he’s just pulling stuff out of thin air here."
veryy Good site Thanks You..!
Nice article - I'll think about it!
"No one wants to sit by and see mass killing. It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity that I can imagine where it could. "
One thing that I've learned from the video linked here is that Matt still hasn't taken down his Christmas lights. Advantage: vlogosphere!
but like i said, i'm not arguing that vlogging is going to take over, or anything. it's just fun, and different, and gives you a sense of context and personality about bloggers that text does not reveal. also, i'll try to capture the next drunken knife fight (of which there are sure to be more) on video.
thanks all teknolojiymis mis :)
For nearly a year leading up to the invasion of Iraq, it was like a cloud of doomed inevitability was hanging over Washington. The biggest problem was that Bush was popular; he had momentum, support and ants in his pants. Maybe we could have invented some alternative that would have made Bush look like a winner for backing down. Maybe we were too downtrodden and our voices were too high-pitched because no one was listening.
This type of strategy was also proposed by Danial Pipes several months ago. The object is to get American troops out of the currently raging civil war in Baghdad and its environs. Personally, I would go beyond that and withdraw all US forces to Kurdistan where they would be welcome as they would provide protection against any attempt by the other two Iraqi factions to intervene there.
good.
very much
Nice article - I'll think about it!
Thanks.
ThanksYou!
very Good.
very Good Site..ThanksYou!
Very GoodSiteThanksYou!..
Thank You!
This type of strategy was also proposed by Danial Pipes several months ago. The object is to get American troops out of the currently raging civil war in Baghdad and its environs. Personally, I would go beyond that and withdraw all US forces to Kurdistan where they would be welcome as they would provide protection against any attempt by the other two Iraqi factions to intervene there ZaLiM..
I'll wait til I hear more from her--and the other candidates--during the actual campaign, and debates, before I draw those kinds of conclusions....
Clinton's plan is not dramatically different from that of the Bush administration. (ZaLim)
While I am sympathetic to your general assessment, the problem is that she'll need to win a November election to be able to do any of that. And I think she's far less likely to win a November election than Edwards....
thank you
thanks
good realy
Assuming that there was a liberal media bias, we didn't believe the media, even though they were correct. The obvious solution, now that the media is vindicated and we were proven wrong, is to correct the liberal media bias which, as I just stated, only existed in our imaginations.
sohbet
but like i said, i'm not arguing that vlogging is going to take over, or anything. it's just fun, and different, and gives you a sense of context and personality about bloggers that text does not reveal. also, i'll try to capture the next drunken knife fight (of which there are sure to be more) on video... thank you
ı am turkish webmaster ı like this site.many good comment have in tih forms
Nice article - I'll think about it
Redtube 89 Seks Sex Porno porn AduLt
Sohbet chat muhabbet çet sohpet
GüzeL SözLer Acı SözLer Aşk SözLeri TatLı SözLer Acı itirafLAr
Mirc Mirç irc irç server
Porno porn Seks Sex aduLt Red tube 89
Mobilya ahşap kapı amerikan kapı Ahsap
Arkadaş Dost Canan yaren yar eş akraba hısım düşman
Site EkLe Link EkLe UrL EkLe Add UrL Web TopList
Sohbet chat muhabbet çet güzel sözler acı sözler itiraflar aşk sözleri kısa mesaj sms toplist site ekle link ekle url ekle free web ekle web siteleri kodlar php asp html codec
Mobilya ahşap kapı amerikan kapı Ahsap
www.sohbetiy.com
www.kankasohbet.net
hi it is this
ya
ya
Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… makes you think more. So please keep up the great work...
Very useful article
Thank you
Verry Good web Thank Youu
super tnx
tnx tnx
aaaaa
adeasdasdas
sohbet
cok guzell
thank you good job
nice collection thanx
thank you very much
thank you good work
thank you very thanxx ;)
thank you good work nice ;)
thank you nice collection
super collection good work
thank you good job ;)
thank you matt
thanks matthenew you are numberone
thank you very much good job
thank you very very much
thanks
evet ole
likeessss thattt
we like all peoples
thanks
have you internet in istanbul
thanksss
thanks man
nice plugin thanks
thanks
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
nice
cool
thanks
whats up man
thxx
ok
sohbet
kim geliy
<a title="sohbet" target="_blank" href="http://www.tamdost.com/">sohbet</a>
thanks
thanks in flowers istanbul
http://sohbet.100webspace.net/
http://www.tamdost.com <a href=http://www.tamdost.com>birbir
yasin
http://www.tamdost.com <a href=http://www.tamdost.com>birbir
http://www.tamdost.com & ? /\ | Rel Follow <a href=http://www.tamdost.com>birbir
http://www.tamdost.com & ? /\ | Rel Follow birbir
http://www??????.### / http://www.tamdost.com href=http://www.tamdost.com>birbir
http://www??????.### / http://www.tamdost.com href=http://www.tamdost.com>birbir
http://www??????.### / birbir
http://www??????.### a href=http://www.tamdost.com>birbir
http://www??????.### a href=http://www.tamdost.com>siirler
http://www??????.####.## a href=http://www.tamdost.com>siirler
http://www??????.###.= a href=http://www.tamdost.com>siirler
http://www??????.###.= href=http://www.tamdost.com>siirler
http://www??????".###.= href=http://www.tamdost.com>siirler
=siirler=
bess
hii
ths
thanks for good article..
[a href="http://www.tamdost.com" rel="nofollow">sohbet[/a]
[link title="sohbet odasi">www.tamdost.com[/link]
[a href="http://www.tamdost.com" rel="follow">sohbet[/a]
[link title="sohbet odasi">www.tamdost.com[/link]
very nice man
hello
thanks
sagol
gercek
selamlar
thanksss
farz
Sohbet, World
thanks :))
veri veri good :))
thankss :))
Love you a blog
thanks guy
Thank you :)
http://www.geyikblog.com
very good aferin
Aferinn,çok iyi:D
Love mo doy
super
nice site tnx
very nice site..
perfect skin
I don't know where the double standards end and the misogyny begins....
thank you
thanks
thanks for your efford
thanks for your efford
thanks for your efford
thankss
thank you for all.
thank you for all.
thank you for all.
thank you
thank you
thank you
thank you
thank you
thank you
thank you
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
programlama,internet dilleri,işletim sistemleri,network,veri tabanları c,pascal,delphi,visual basic,html,css,javasript,asp, network,işletim sistemleri vb. bilgiler ve konularla ilgili örnekler
thank you
thank you
thank you
thank you
thank you
French Santé ;)
des articles sur la santé
des articles sur la santé
des articles sur la santé
thank you
Good comment.Thanks admin.
Good comment.Thanks admin.
Good comment.Thanks admin.
www.bedavadiziizle.net
thanks man!
sohbet kanal
sohpet kanal
javasız sohbet
lezbiyenchat
camdasohbet
camlı sohbet
alem sohbet
konya sohbet
sohbetbol
chet siteleri
sohbet alemi
bedavasohbet kanal
chatodaları
camsohbet
konyasohbet
sohbet
seo yarışması
drcetinerdotorg
thanks for artichle
Thank u.
thanx for links
Nice ...
Thanks ..
asfd
asasf
asasf
ad
dadasfsdf
thank a lot
thank you very much m8.
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
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
Thanks
hadı
Thank
you
thanks
http://www.mjsohbet.com/nick+maker.html
thank you
Thanks
nice
nice s
nice s
Thanks
hikaye
What I would like to see is proportionate coverage, not any lessening of coverage of evil committed by Americans. Because the Chinese government kills mostly Chinese citizens, should we ignore it? Isn't a Chinese life worth the same coverage as the life of anyone else in the world?
You have very interesting site.Thanks for all.
guzel sozler
guzel mesajlar
guzel Siirler
ask Sozler
Ask Mesajlari
Ask Siirleri
Sevgi Sozleri
Sevgi Mesajlari
Sevgi Siirleri
Guzel Hikayeler
guzel fikralar
guzel yazilar
guzel nickler
bebek isimleri
cocuk isimleri
msn resimleri
msn nickleri
msn adresleri
msn kullanma
sevgi ask
ask sevgi
ask nedir
sevgi nedir
manzara resimleri
hayvan resimleri
cicek resimleri
gul resimleri
cocuk resimleri
bebek resimleri
ask resimleri
sevgi resimleri
guzel resimler
muzik
radyo
siirler
dinler
namaz
dualar
dini radyo
komik sozler
komik mesajlar
komik siirler
komik resimler
ruya tabirleri
ruya yorumlari
ruya gormek
dunya haritasi
sifali bitkiler
yemek tarifleri
dini ilahiler
duvar yazilari
ingilizce sozluk
ingilizce ceviri
almanca sozluk
turkce sozluk
show tv
kanal d
samanyolu
atv
mmc tv
trt1 tv
tv kanallari
canli tv
nefret sozleri
ozlu sozler
kisa sozler
anlamli sozler
sohbet
sohbet
dinler
namaz
dualar
dini radyo
komik sozler
komik mesajlar
komik siirler
komik resimler
ruya tabirleri
ruya yorumlari
ruya gormek
dunya haritasi
sifali bitkiler
yemek tarifleri
dini ilahiler
duvar yazilari
ingilizce sozluk
ingilizce ceviri
almanca sozluk
turkce sozluk
show tv
kanal d
samanyolu
atv
mmc tv
trt1 tv
tv kanallari
canli tv
nefret sozleri
ozlu sozler
kisa sozler
anlamli sozler
sohbet
sohbet
guzel sozler
guzel mesajlar
guzel Siirler
ask Sozler
Ask Mesajlari
Ask Siirleri
Sevgi Sozleri
Sevgi Mesajlari
Sevgi Siirleri
Guzel Hikayeler
guzel fikralar
guzel yazilar
guzel nickler
bebek isimleri
cocuk isimleri
msn resimleri
msn nickleri
msn adresleri
msn kullanma
sevgi ask
ask sevgi
ask nedir
sevgi nedir
manzara resimleri
hayvan resimleri
cicek resimleri
gul resimleri
cocuk resimleri
bebek resimleri
ask resimleri
sevgi resimleri
guzel resimler
muzik
radyo
siirler
dinler
namaz
dualar
dini radyo
komik sozler
komik mesajlar
komik siirler
komik resimler
ruya tabirleri
ruya yorumlari
ruya gormek
dunya haritasi
sifali bitkiler
yemek tarifleri
dini ilahiler
duvar yazilari
ingilizce sozluk
ingilizce ceviri
almanca sozluk
turkce sozluk
show tv
kanal d
samanyolu
atv
mmc tv
trt1 tv
tv kanallari
canli tv
nefret sozleri
ozlu sozler
kisa sozler
anlamli sozler
sohbet
dinler
dinler
porno
sex
hikaye
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
mirc
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mir