Edwards Statement on Iraq

I you're right, the statement goes as far as any campaign statment can about foreign policy contingencies. It's more important to get a sense of a candidates "philosophy" on foreign policy than any concrete promise, because the challenges we'll face over the next four years will almost certainly include completely unforeseen events.

If you think, as Edwards and I do, that it's a good idea for there to be forces in the region capable of responding to contingencies, then there's still a question of how you respond to actual contingencies.

That begs the question, what are the types of "contingencies" that Matthew Yglesias could see advocating using troops based in the Middle East for? For example, Edwards says that he may use those troops to "prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries". Would Matthew advocate using troops for this purpose?

If Edwards wants to have combat troops in Iraq, he wants combat troops in Iraq. He can't have it both ways.

"If Edwards wants to have combat troops in Iraq, he wants combat troops in Iraq. He can't have it both ways."

If you closely examine the third and forth sentences, they read:

No combat troops in the country. Period.

I'm unsure what the confusion is...

Yeah, that intrinsic fuzziness seems a bit too fuzzy to me. Humanitarian workers? What exactly would they be doing, and how many guards would he foresee protecting them? Note that he said American civilians, the same American civilians that blogs have quite rightly been assuring us cannot set foot outside of the green zone without being kidnapped. That leaves quite a lot of options open for military troops to remain.

Also, "prevent the sectarian violence from spilling over into other countries". What, exactly would this entail? The Sectarian violence is centered around Baghdad, Diyala, other non-border areas of Iraq. I could see other countries getting pulled IN to iraq, but not to likely that much violence would leak out, at least not any the arab countries couldn't handle themselves. If anything, american troops fighting "violence" and doing counter-terror in neighboring Arab countries would inspire resistance there.

And, to really get picky: if things keep going as badly as they are, you probably won't have an embassy in Iraq before long, at least not without a sizeable diplomatic presence. I don't think marine guards will cut it if there is no green zone. Do recall the embassy evacuation from South Vietnam...you only re-established relations there in 1995.

Now to be fair Edwards can't say this...but withdrawal would likely mean WITHDRAWAL, or else you would need to keep a sizeable presence inside the country.

Hopefully I'm not being overly pessimistic. One related point of interest: does anyone know what the situation is like at other Western Embassies? I know the British Embassy is in the green zone. I'm curious to know what security is like at the others, though they would obviously be less of a target than the US or UK embassy.

Petey:

"If you closely examine the third and forth sentences, they read:

No combat troops in the country. Period.

I'm unsure what the confusion is..."

Here's part of the confusion: what sort of troops will be defending the humanitarian workers -- non-combat troops? Even the matter of Marine embassy guards is disingenuous: Edwards knows there is a huge difference between a token force of Marines in dress uniforms at the Tokyo embassy and the large contingent of combat troops that will be required to defend our enormous embassy in Baghdad.

Also, what about keeping troops "in the region" to "prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide."? Presumably, genocide, sectarian violence, and terrorism will be happening in Iraq, if anywhere. If so -- and if you have stationed troops "in the region" to deal with it -- they would have to go into Iraq to deal with these problems, no?

Bottom line: There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of difference between the major (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) positions on Iraq -- and there is less difference between the group of them and Bush's policy than most grass roots Dems yet realize.

if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all?

I'd note that this leaves the door wide open for continuing or renewed military involvement.

A) We don't have troops protecting American citizens doing humanitarian work anywhere else in the world, unless it's an official government project.

B) If troops are going to be defending something, that means we expect it to get attacked. If it's attacked and they defend it, that's combat. Thus this contradicts his, "No combat troops in the country" statement unless by "defend" he means "stand around and get shot at."

If we pull out, we pull out. Those who worked with us will be branded as collaborators and rounded up. Americans left in Iraq will be deemed spies and rounded up or expelled. There will be no public or private American presence tolerated in Iraq post-occupation, not for a good decade or more (think Khomeini-era Iran). I think this is still preferable to eternal war, but let's not sugarcoat it.

if you closely examine the third and forth sentences, they read:

No combat troops in the country. Period.

I'm unsure what the confusion is...

The confusion would be that its hard to picture what it would mean to have troops in the country (ie. to protect humanitarian workers) that weren't also combat troops. How exactly would they protect them short of combat? Iraq, after all, is not exactly your stereotypical peacekeeping environment. American troops in country would be attacked, as they are attacked today. That would make them either combat troops or dead.

Wow, everyone seems to be on a common wavelength here. Interesting hypothetical: how many americans would have supported the Iraq war if told that by 2008 it would be unlikely they could have so much as an embassy there?

There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of difference between the major (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) positions on Iraq -- and there is less difference between the group of them and Bush's policy than most grass roots Dems yet realize.

I think that's sort of right (depending on whether you disbelieve the Admin.'s description of the purpose of the surge), but that's also sort of the nature of the beast. No candidate can make claims about what he or she will do in the face of unknown circumstances; they can, I suppose, but they shouldn't be believed. Which is why I think the most important issue is to attempt to guess at the instincts of the various candidates and their advisors. At most, the policies will be evidence of that. I recently listened to Garance's bloggingheads episode with Drezner: it appears that people have some insight into the issue of advisor instincts, and it would be great to see some journalist actually publish some analysis.

Regarding Western Embassies: the portuguese one's been closed a while, for security. http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-16-portugal_N.htm

"The confusion would be that its hard to picture what it would mean to have troops in the country (ie. to protect humanitarian workers) that weren't also combat troops."

I was assuming that the term "combat troops" actually has some specific meaning, and that saying we'll remove all combat troops from the country indicates something specific.

But I'm out of my depth in talking military, so I frankly don't have a clue what those specifics are. However, I take...

No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period.

...at face value. There are plenty of weasel words one can use if one wants to leave their options open. Edwards doesn't seem to be leaving his options open in this regard.

Petey:

"Edwards doesn't seem to be leaving his options open in this regard."

Edwards is leaving the door open to contain sectarian violence, fight terrorism, and prevent genocide in Iraq -- arguably the bulk of what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq now.

The problem for Dems is that what won them the election in '06 (railing against a mismanaged war) doesn't work the same now, because Bush has responded to their complaints. Rumsfeld and Abizaid are gone, Casey's been kicked upstairs; the blind focus on just training Iraqi troops while the country descended into chaos has been replaced with a strategy to at least attempt to limit the violence. Of course, most of the base just wants out now, so, rather than taking credit for these changes, the Dems in Congress feel compelled to pretend that Bush hasn't changed strategies; that leaves them with... calling for withdrawal.

Unfortunately, mainstream Dems realize withdrawal isn't really possible -- we will need troops and diplomats in Iraq for years to come to deal with the contingencies Edwards acknowledges. That raises a political problem for the Dems in reconciling the aspirations of their base with the reality of our continued commitment to Iraq. This opens the door for a third party candidate to run on a real withdrawal (and perhaps more broadly isolationist) platform in '08, which could draw votes from the Dem nominee.

"and there is less difference between the group of them and Bush's policy than most grass roots Dems yet realize."

I don't agree with this assertion at all. There's probably a fringe group of Democrats who think that John Edwards as President is going to leave Iraq immediately and unconditionally, and an even smaller fringe that thinks that would be a good idea. But this isn't most Dems, who understand that the difference between Bush's Iraq policy and Edwards' proposed policy is incredibly large despite the fact that Edwards wants to leave some troops there to protect the U.S. embassy.

On Iraq, though, we now have a pretty solid picture of where Clinton, on the one hand, and Edwards and Richardson, on the other hand, stand.
- Matt

OK, I do think the Clintons have acquired some taste for empire. But otherwise, I don't see any definite differences in where these politicians stand, and certainly no differences in their histories on Middle East policy. The rhetorical differences on Iraq that Matt is talking about seem to me exactly what anyone would predict based on their bullshit campaign styles. Hillary is triangulating. Edwards is connecting. Richardson is boring. Sorry, couldn't resist.

An interesting perspective, from Fouad Ajami.

What I'd like to know here is: Does "combat troops" have some special kind of technical meaning that excludes soldiers hanging around specifically to provide security for US aid workers?

If we end up bringing back almost all our guys, except a few who stay back to guard some aid workers, I'm fine with that.

I think it is a fact that complete withdrawl of combat troops in the near future leaves the US, Iraq and the region in a very precarious situation, with a great risk of catastrophe if the civil war becomes worse, or neighbors become more involved.

Of course, the current Bush/Cheney course does exactly the same, except some of the risk is hidden -for example, the gradual degradation of US military capacity. And once US military capacity is sufficiently degraded so that it can no longer function well in Iraq, then, if past history is any guide, everyone will face the same risks later as we do with complete withdrawal of troops in the near future. Or, perhaps things will become even worse and more risky if the US military presence continues.

Any proposal for a solution that restricts itself to the question of troop withdrawl now or later can be picked apart because of the simple facts outlined above.

So, unless people are willing to discuss comprehenseive negotiations with neighbors and parties inside Iraq, any proposal regarding military forces can be easily picked apart. A rethink of financial arrangements between US and Iraw also is also needed. A wide variety of smart people including Greenwald, Pat Lang, and the ISG seem to agree on that point.

There should be more discussion and more proposals of the diplomatic, political, economic and financial measures needed to avoid the current choice between very bad and risky vs. catastrophic results. Bush/Cheney poliicies there have been as bad as their military policies.

Edwards and others should discuss what comprehensive measures, military and diplomatic, political, economic and financial, that they would start taking right now to improve the miserable situation and exapnd the current menu of unacceptable choices.

Edwards is about as clear as we can reasonably expect - and also
clearly much closer to the withdrawal most of us hope for than
either Sen Clinton (50k troops in Iraq to fight AQ) or Sen Obama.

He's now got the best healthcare proposal and the best position
on Iraq. What's not to like ?

"OK, I do think the Clintons have acquired some taste for empire. But otherwise, I don't see any definite differences in where these politicians stand."

Imperial ambition should be red line that defines the difference between the candidates, much more than fuzzy statements about which troops remain to protect the embassy, humanitarian missions, etc.

John Judis states flat out, and I think many would agree with him, that "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."

We can infer from John Edwards statements that he is close to embracing that position. Hillary is least likely to foreswear empire:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19087&prog=zgp&proj=zusr

The candidate that clearly states that his/her presidency will have no imperial ambition inside Iraq gets my vote.

I actually prefer that Obama is keeping his options open, rather than making spurious campaign promises that everyone knows are worthless anyway. I hope he doesn't get off the fence until he's damn well sure what the best policy will be.

Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide.

This is utter nonsense. Anyone giving Edwards credit for this position is delusional.

The part about preventing sectarian violence from spilling over into other countries? Am I supposed to imagine one of those Looney Tunes fights where the participants are lost in a dustball rolling towards the Iranian border? The troops will intervene when the dustball gets too close to the border? This is a joke.

There's going to be tons of sectarian violence, possibly genocide (or, dare I say, acts of genocide).

All Edwards is saying here is: trust me. I'm not completely against that notion. I'm fine giving someone who I have confidence in that kind of trust. But to give Edwards credit for any kind of substantive policy position here is lunacy. There's nothing there.

Combat troops tend to be about 20 percent of the total number, if recent discussions about the Surge! have been accurate. To get 20k troops required 48k additional troops to support them and the mobilization of 12k national guardspersons.

That begs the question

Oh Al. Al. I expected better of you.

BegTheQuestion.info

Is Joe Biden still running for President? Biden says, ""I would use American force now," in Darfur.

Every candidate -- Democrat and Republican -- should be required to read Christopher Caldwell's essay in the Financial Times from last December, It's Best to Stay out of Darfur, and write a short essay discussing the situations in Iraq and Darfur in light of the points Caldwell raises.

Essays like that one make me lean toward ditching home delivery of the WSJ and switching to the FT.

"If we end up bringing back almost all our guys, except a few who stay back to guard some aid workers, I'm fine with that."

Not to pick on Neil, I've read your stuff at Ezra's site with interest, but....this seems all too typical of progressives who oppose the war. Except a few who guard the aid workers??? Are you serious? What do you think this would entail? Reality based community...honestly

I'm all for humanitarian intervention when it has a chance of doing some good...but America doesn't have much more of a role to play in Iraq, particularly once the bulk of your troops leave country. Do you seriously imagine a reality where some caucasian dogooders manage to dispense aid in the street of Baghdad and Diyala? Under the protection of American soldiers? You've destroyed their country; anyone who looks remotely American will either be torn to shreds or held hostage for ransom money once the main force has exited stage left.

Once the American people decide to support politicians who want to pull out, there will be no turning back. Your role to play in Iraq will be over, it will be up to the Iraqis to determine a stable equilibrium, even if the road to doing so will be bloody.

I'm sure it feels nice to imagine that you can accomplish something constructive once Bush leaves office; don't succumb to that illusion. Iraqis will determine their own fate, there is little role now for Americans.

I'm with blah. It would be crazy for Obama to make dumb ass promises like this one. Fortunately, because he opposed the war in the first place, he doesn't have to.

Does "combat troops" have some special kind of technical meaning . . . ?

Yes. After a recruit finishes basic training, he/she goes on to train in one of a number of specialties. Some of them are classified as 'combat', others as 'non-combat'. For example there are two kinds of engineers - regular engineers and 'combat engineers'.

"...if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them."

So what he means is: the 100,000 "contractors" (mercenaries) will do the combat, with troops giving support.

I'm with blah. It would be crazy for Obama to make dumb ass promises like this one. Fortunately, because he opposed the war in the first place, he doesn't have to.

Nonsense.

Regardless of opposing the war, Obama will have to manage the situation going forward and should make clear to voters what he will de.

Regardless of opposing the war, Obama will have to manage the situation going forward and should make clear to voters what he will de.

Yup, there are allot of on-line liberals who opposed the war from the beginning, as I did, who are sitting around waiting for their Gold Star. But, they're not running for President. Unless, Obama has a Way-Back-Machine, he's going to have to address the inevitably messy aftermath this debacle is going to leave, just like everyone else.

Unless, Obama has a Way-Back-Machine, he's going to have to address the inevitably messy aftermath this debacle is going to leave, just like everyone else.

Of course. But he doesn't have to make absurdly specific promises about what he will do. Those kind of commitments are genuinely unwise, and most voters, including in Democratic primaries, will see that. I doubt this helps Edwards at all.

“Of course. But he doesn't have to make absurdly specific promises about what he will do. Those kind of commitments are genuinely unwise, and most voters, including in Democratic primaries, will see that. I doubt this helps Edwards at all.”

I don’t think candidates have to have a specific plan, but they should be able to clearly state whether they would unconditionally withdraw from Iraq as the base wants or stay and attempt to manage the violence.

Edwards tried to have it both ways as politicians usually do. He promised to withdraw unconditionally in the first three sentences, then proceeded to say that he would stay and manage the violence. He looks really, really bad.

Via Hotline On Call:

bout that MoveOn straw poll... Obama and Edwards topped the MoveOn straw poll on Iraq, but of those who actually watched the online town hall meeting on Iraq, Obama finished third.

Do voters like Obama more than they like his positions?

I love it "no more war." Pray tell, whose war? There will be plenty of war. I think the Democrat notion of the "Oops, my bad" and leave foreign policy is morally unjust. Does anyone out there remember the boat people or the Khmer Rouge? Of course, we as a nation and member of the UN are adept at sitting around, wringing our hands and doing nothing about genocide (Balkans 92 - 95, Rwanda, Sudan). "To whom much is given, much is expected in return."

Are advisors to the Iraqi Army "combat troops"? Are troops guarding humanitarian workers "combat troops"? I think the term "combat troops" is a focus group product designed to make us all feel better about ourselves. All troops are "combat troops". The amount of combat they engage in may vary. We are finding that truck drivers and military police are engaging in more "combat" then many infantry and armor units. Cindy Sheehan's son was a mechanic. Senator Edwards is putting out some pretty fuzzy stuff in a creepy third person sort of way.

I agree with Edwards’ statement on Iraq.
It cost $340 billion for Iraq War thus far and it only needs $19 billions to save the people in global poverty, according to The Borgen Project. Comparing to the $522 billion U.S. military budget, this annual cost of improving the world is very little.
I hope our political leader will realize how much money and precious lives they are wasting on a war against “terrorism”, and next president will make a commitment to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals to end the global poverty.
It is really not so hard if we are truly willing to make a change and bring peace to the world not by military solution but by humanitarian aid.

I agree with Edwards’ statement on Iraq.
It cost $340 billion for Iraq War thus far and it only needs $19 billions to save the people in global poverty, according to The Borgen Project. Comparing to the $522 billion U.S. military budget, this annual cost of improving the world is very little.
I hope our political leader will realize how much money and precious lives they are wasting on a war against “terrorism”, and next president will make a commitment to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals to end the global poverty.
It is really not so hard if we are truly willing to make a change and bring peace to the world not by military solution but by humanitarian aid.

I didn't see anything in Edwards's statement about solving world poverty.

Wrong. Matt.

It's emininently unreasonable.

Just how many thousands of troops do you think the US will need to defend the largest embassy in the world? How many do you think the US will need to defend the (supposed) thousands of humanitarian workers that WOULD be needed IF Iraq was to get back on its feet? How many troops do you think the US will need to defend the OIL COMPANY workers needed to steal Iraq's oil over the next twenty or thirty years? How many thousands of US SUPPORT troops will be needed to support the COMBAT troops needed to "defend" all these people?

Face facts. ANY US troops in Iraq will be a target FOREVER.

What part of "TARGET" and "FOREVER" doesn't Edwards understand?

Do you think the US will sit there as dozens of US troops are killed every month out of those "contingency forces"?

If he wants to withdraw every single soldier out of Iraq and put them in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia - or even hidden in a mountain in the Kurdish areas of Iraq (assuming they then don't get killed in the coming war between the Turks and the Kurds) - that's one thing.

But fuzzily talking about "contingency forces" INSIDE Iraq is just plain stupid.

Read my lips. IT IS OVER. WE LOST. GET OVER IT. MOVE OUT.

And when I say "MOVE OUT", I DO NOT mean "MOVE INTO IRAN"...

And on this latter, Edwards AGREES with Hillary, and Obama - and George Bush: "No options off the table".

And that's a recipe for the greatest strategic disaster in the history of the United States - something that will make Vietnam and Iraq pale in comparison.

Read my lips again: THERE IS NO IRANIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. PERIOD.

The Iranians might be dreaming of one - but they DO NOT HAVE ONE.

Nothing the Iranians are doing is either illegal, outside the NPT, or provides any evidence whatsoever of a nuclear weapons program.

When I hear Edwards talking about disarming Israel of 200 or more nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles on submarines, I'll take him more seriously.

In the meantime, the goal is every single US soldier AND civilian (if the oil companies want protection, let them hire some more mercenaries) OUT of Iraq NOW.

I am also in agreement with the message of John Edwards on Iraq. It is now time to begin the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. We have already lost a lot of lives and money in Iraq.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

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

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

www.sexshopum.com
www.harbiarkadas.com
www.harbiarkadas.net
www.harbiarkadas.org
www.itirafet.org
www.ebedava.net
www.elektronikmarket.net
www.ameribress.com
www.clitoriacream.net
www.superspenisbuyutucu.com
www.megabress.com
www.rednightperformans.com
www.performansartirici.com
www.penisplus.tv
www.penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
www.penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
www.cinselmerkez.com
www.aseks.net
www.erotikcamasirlar.com
www.vajinatr.com
www.bakirevajina.com
www.cinselkozmetik.com
www.kozmetikmedikel.com
www.eturknet.com
www.tecavuz.net
www.yutuvideo.com
www.ponotubesex.com
www.laraperuk.com
www.sackanagimerkezi.com
www.peruksa.com
www.perukmarket.com
www.aseks.com
www.aloveshop.com
www.erotikgiyim.com
www.www.geciktiricispreyler.com
www.geciktiricihap.com
www.geciktiriciler.com
www.azdirici.com
www.bayanuyarici.com
www.fntazialemi.com
www.fantaziservisi.om
www.cinselmazemeler.com
www.cinselfantaziurunleri.com
www.erotikdakikalar.com
www.erotikmarketiniz.com
www.seksmarketiniz.com
www.sekshatlari.com
www.erotikdergiler.com
www.erotikderginiz.com
www.penisbuyutucuviprx.com
www.penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
www.penisbuyutuculer.com
www.vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
www.sismebebekler.com
www.sismebebekshop.com
www.yemekeviniz.com
www.sanalmarketiniz.com
www.elektronikmarket.net
www.ebedava.net
www.kontortr.com
www.elaydin23.com
www.turkcellkontorcu.com
www.aveakontoral.com
www.vodafonekontoral.com
www.toptankontorcu.com
www.cinselkozmetik.com
www.bayanpartnerler.com
www.erkekpartnerler.com
www.kizarkadaslar.com
www.yonjaarkadas.com
www.siberalem-siberalem.com
www.sexpartnerler.com
www.sekspartnerler.com
www.erotikpartnerler.com
www.gencyuz.com
www.erkekarkadaslar.com
www.bayanarkadaslar.com
www.yemekeviniz.com
www.sanalmarketiniz.com
www.baskahaber.com
www.medikalkozmetik.net
www.kozmetikmedikal.com
www.zayiflamavediyet.net
www.zayiflamahapii.com
www.zayiflamabandii.com
www.kilovertr.com
www.zayiflamatr.net
www.diyettr.com
www.toksinbandi.net
www.botoxtr.com
www.botokstr.com
www.selulittedavii.com
www.selulitgiderici.net
www.selulitkremii.com
www.catlaktedavisii.com
www.catlakgiderici.net
www.catlakkremii.com
www.aseks.com
www.erotikgiyim.com
www.aloveshop.com
www.sismebebekshop.com

penis büyütücü

Dış Cephe
Fibercement
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe
Dışcephe
Dışcephe
Güvenlik

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
turk mirc
mircada
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
irc forum
Mirc forum
irc forum