 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
October 27, 2006
By: JUMPING AT SHADOWS....James Joyner links today to a pair of critics who warn that withdrawing from Iraq would "play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists" (Peter Bergen) and cause al-Qaeda to "rejoice" (Michael Scheuer). That may be true. But what's missing here is what happens if we stay in Iraq: it will play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists and cause al-Qaeda to rejoice. This is the position that George Bush's blinkered view of national security has gotten us into: al-Qaeda improves its position no matter what happens. If we stay in Iraq, it's a substantive win because it helps recruiting and provides a cause for militant jihadists to rally around. If we leave, Osama & Co. will claim that they caused the mighty United States to leave with its tail between its legs. So which is worse? A substantive victory for al-Qaeda or a round of theatrical, breast-beating propaganda videos on al-Jazeera? That's actually a harder question to answer than it seems, but it's still not that hard. If our foreign policy is focused primarily on the fear of what our enemies might say about us rather than on the substance of what's really happening, we're helpless. Al-Qaeda will always claim victory, after all. —Kevin Drum 5:21 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (102)Comments
Smokey up there, Kevin? Any, lets be more precise with our terms. The US will not completely withdraw from Iraq. There will be troups and SFs left after major ingagements have stopped. These SF will deal with the AQ types that are still around. I've heard that most of the AQ types think thier chances are better in afghanistan anyway. Withdraw doesn't mean complete abandumnet of Iraq, it just means leaving the major cities. I think we will always hunt AQ not matter where they go. Posted by: the fake fake Al on October 27, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINKAnd guess when all the FUBARitude will come to grand fruition: just as the new president comes to office in just over two years. What a large stinking albatros to hand over to the Dems! Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on October 27, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINKI talked about this a few days ago at my place. It seems to me that the bottom line is that, sooner or later, we're leaving Iraq. Given that fact, and given the fact al Qaeda will be able to claim victory when we do, we gain no advantage by staying longer. Unless someone can offer a realistic plan for how staying will really help things in Iraq, the fact al Qaeda will gain a propaganda victory when we leave shouldn't be a factor in the decision. Posted by: Andrew Olmsted on October 27, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINKIt is of total vital importance that we stay there and keep killing all enemies, no matter how many Americans die or how much it costs! Leaving = Losing. Since the idiot neo-cons have been absolutely fucking wrong about virtually everything so far, what's to make one think they aren't wrong about their predictions if we just get the fuck out? According to their track record, if we just left peace would probably break out! Posted by: angryspittle on October 27, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINKHello, I'm Osama and I approve this message. The following video is of a captured American Crusader soldier being waterboarded, which your vice-president has assured the world is not torture, but a legitimate interrogation technique. It is, as you say, a "win-win" situation whether you stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, or leave! Oh, and please vote Republican this November! Posted by: Osama on October 27, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINKSo which is worse? A substantive victory for al-Qaeda or a round of theatrical, breast-beating propaganda videos on al-Jazeera? Very well put. Posted by: Old Hat on October 27, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKAl-Qaeda will always claim victory, after all. They learned this from Republicans, who do the same thing. Posted by: jimBOB on October 27, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINKThat may be true. But what's missing here is what happens if we stay in Iraq: it will play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists and cause al-Qaeda to rejoice. Nonsense. If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will see America as cutting and running. Staying in Iraq will cause the terrorists to see America as having steely resolve and moral clarity. Unfortunately liberals don't understand the nature of the enemy. We know that the enemy wants to attack America again. Liberals and Democrats propose nothing but obstruction and constant second-guessing. The stakes are high in Iraq. Nothing less than victory is acceptable. We cannot cut and run and let the enemies attack again. We must respond before they attack so another 9/11 doesn't happen. Posted by: Al on October 27, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKLike Bush "Cut and Ran" from Afghanistan? Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 27, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK
I'm surprised Scheuer, formerly of the liberal CIA, disagrees with that assessment. Posted by: agum on October 27, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINKBergen does recommend greatly reducing the number of American troops in Iraq. If we pull out, will Islamists seize control of a governate or two? Bush may have gotten us into a situation no more winnable than Vietnam but considerably more costly to lose. Posted by: Rainsborough on October 27, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK1 year ago, most voters believed that the big discussion about Iraq was between victory and defeat. The costs of lives, dollars and world standing was second. But now, with a timetable for victory uncertain, the price is quickly becoming the bigger issue for most voters. Posted by: wishIwuz2 on October 27, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINKIf we started a draft, and rounded up 600-900k more US troops, sent them to Iraq, and imposed order - yes, a LOT more innocent Iraqis would die. But the end result would not be a failed state. If we keep troop levels at 140k, a lot of innocent Iraqis will still die, and we'll end up with TWO failed states (Iraq, and the US). If we bail, a lot of innocent Iraqis will die, and we'll end up with a failed state. Those seem to be the options. Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 27, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINKNow, now, now Kevin, "If our foreign policy is focused primarily on the fear of what our enemies might say about us rather than on the substance of what's really happening in Iraq, we're doom to re-live Vietnam all over again. Duh! Clearly James Joyner is a devoted follower of Kissinger doctrine, which is why poppy Bush adopted the Powell doctrine being NO where NEAR as stupid as his young, over-protected offspring. You know the doctrine, the one with an exit strategy. Incurious people like Joyner and Dubya, being no student of history themselves, are doom to repeat history all over again. Posted by: Cheryl on October 27, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKOsama never tortured anyone. He told his people to cut their heads off. So much more humane that way. Did we watch what Hamas did when Israel left their territory? Seems to me they were partying like they had won the battle. But yet we cannot predict how the terrorist will react!?! Posted by: Orwell on October 27, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINKMaybe Jim Webb can write about what is going on over there so we can hear in graphic detail how things will get better with Democrats in charge. Mark Foley loves his books. Posted by: Orwell on October 27, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINKWe can't stay but we can't leave. Rummy told me it was like a Zen thing, or whatever. Posted by: George W. Bush on October 27, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINKOsama never tortured anyone? How do you KNOW that, Orwell? Sounds like you have some inside information; maybe you have some friends in Al Qaeda, eh? MAYBE, just MAYBE, we should turn you over to the Vice President's friends for a little questioning. Posted by: Speed on October 27, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINKIt may be a propagnda coup for Al Queda should and when the Americans leave (more or less} from Iraq, but I can't imagine the remnants of Al Queda would be so popular at in Iraq at this time..It seems they have killed alot of innocent Iraqis in their suicide bombings. As Juan Cole notes, their popularity has diminished with these collateral damage attacks and there would probably be alot of scorces to settle between them and the Shiites in particular. As for the threat they pose for the rest of the world?...their time may have past; as for the other jihadist groups that's another question. Posted by: Steve Crickmore on October 27, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINKI'd like to see things from Bergens point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass. Remember he was CNNs go to guy explaining to all how necessary the invasion of Iraq was. AQ will not last in Iraq once the US is gone. They are foreigners. They will not be welcome and with the US gone, they will not be serving a useful purpose any more to the average Iraqi. The Shia will hunt them down relentlessly if they locate in the south or the east. Iran will want them out as well. They will fair little better in the highly secular Sunni middle. If AQ tries to camp out farther west, they will be targeted by the Baathist from Syria. Going north, the Kurds would butcher them and hang them from their oil derricks. So, yeah, Bergen et al are full of shit. If AQ were to be happy the US left, their smiles would not last long. The will be too busy running for their lives. This is the position that George Bush's blinkered view of national security has gotten us into: al-Qaeda improves its position no matter what happens. If we stay in Iraq, it's a substantive win because it helps recruiting and provides a cause for militant jihadists to rally around. If we leave, Osama & Co. will claim that they caused the mighty United States to leave with its tail between its legs. Don't both these scenerios assume that once we leave the Shia leadership that will emerge to dominate the country (and by extension, Iran's leadership) are predisposed to al Qaeda? We already know that the Kurds want nothing to do with them, so how do we know that whatever al Qaeda is up to in Iraq now isn't merely tolerated because the activities are directed against the U.S.? Does the Arab saying apply here as it did in the first Gulf War - My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger. I think a more likely scenerio is al Qaeda moving out of the tribal areas of Pakistan and back into Afghanistan once NATO leaves in the next nine months. Posted by: JeffII on October 27, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKThe idea of not winning ijn Iraq appalls me. War is tough. We have fought and won wars that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops. The question is whether Americans today have the courage to defend our values and our security. It's pretty clear that Europe doesn't. They aren't even dealing with Islamofascism conducted by their own citizens within their own borders. It's tempting to join the Europeans in a state of denial. Head in the sand is so warm and comfortable. But, if we allow Islamofascism to reign, our children will curse us. Posted by: ex-liberal on October 27, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINKIt's only one very large battle in a Global War (according to Dubya), so moving on isn't winning or losing the War. Both sides will claim victory no matter what. We're leaving sooner or later. The only question is why we're there and whether we can achieve our goals. I haven't heard any good reason for us to be there and we've already achieved all but one of the goals Bush originally set - to nation-build. But, then he said he was against nation building during the 2000 campaign, so he might have some subconscious hesitance to get that done. We can't do more than kill people now, so we should leave. our children will curse us. I'll save you the time by cusing you now...you are a jackass. Posted by: Keith G on October 27, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINKOccupiers don't have the option to "cut and run" they just leave, eventually. It might be a prince steaming out of harbor in the royal yacht or it might be the Brits limping out of Iraq after forty fuckiing years that depleted the treasury and sapped the will of the people. How quickly they forgot. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINKOBF - The most appealing of your three scenarios clearly was the first, "If we started a draft, and rounded up 600-900k more US troops, sent them to Iraq, and imposed order - yes, a LOT more innocent Iraqis would die. But the end result would not be a failed state." The problem of course is that in the time and place in which we exist, with Bush and Rumsfeld determining the mission of those 600-900k more us troops, there would be no imposition of order, only an additional 600-900k targets for IEDs. Posted by: oldgreenguy on October 27, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINKit will play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists and cause al-Qaeda to rejoice. Are you sure that you know what will cause al-Qaeda to rejoice? Lately they have been mostly whining. Posted by: papago on October 27, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK...withdrawing from Iraq would "play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists" (Peter Bergen) and cause al-Qaeda to "rejoice" (Michael Scheuer). Why don't people get this: invading Iraq caused that. Doesn't matter, on those points, whether we stay or go, now, those results are guaranteed. Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINKBut, if we allow Islamofascism to reign, our children will curse us. ex liberal..so the way we fight back is by heavy collateral damage, extrordinary rendition legalising and making fun of torture, the Geneva Conventions ala Dick Cheney and then allying ourselves with the "Iran-loving, Shiite fundamentalist, death-squad-deploying government" in Iraq, run by lawless militias...Ex liberal, you had better get your child a programme so they he can tell the players. If we left Vietnam we would have a failed state. So we stayed and when we left we had a failed state, and lots of dead Americans. We left. Thirty Years later, it turns out we won the war after all. Vietnam is a pretty functional, pretty good commerce player. If we leave Iraq it will become shit. If we stay it will become shit with lots of dead Americans. So we leave. We find Osama and we kill him. We encourage what is left of Iraq to allow Nike and Dell and Walmart to come in and pacify them. And in 2036 we will find a pretty good functioning state there. Posted by: jerry on October 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINKEveryone sets their hair on fire - "We can't leave Iraq! Then the terrorists will win and kill us all!!! AAAHHHHGGGGG!!!!!" (and Dean is called hysterical?) Well guess what? We aren't losign just one war, we are losign two - Iraq to incompetence and Afghanistan to neglect. Way to go, thug-nuts. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINKto speed re:osama didnt torture its people like you who get people arrested for free speech Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on October 27, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINKrejoice. This is the position that George Bush's blinkered view of national security has gotten us into: al-Qaeda improves its position no matter what happens. If we stay in Iraq, it's a substantive win because it helps recruiting and provides a cause for militant jihadists to rally around. If we leave, Osama & Co. will claim that they caused the mighty United States to leave with its tail between its legs. You also leave out, though, that by staying we are worsening the problems that we claim we are going to stay until they are fixed, so we never get any closer to "winning". Eventually, if we stay, we're going to leave with, most likely, all the benefits al-Qaeda would reap if we left now, and probably more, plus a lot more dead Iraqis and Americans. How many more people do we have to kill in a vain effort to justify the deaths that have already occurred from Bush's folly? Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINKThat may be true. But what's missing here is what happens if we stay in Iraq: it will play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists and cause al-Qaeda to rejoice. This is the position that George Bush's blinkered view of national security has gotten us into: al-Qaeda improves its position no matter what happens. I believe Middle East security experts The Clash got this right years ago when they predicted that, to paraphrase, if we go there will be trouble, if we stay there will be double. Posted by: Steafn on October 27, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINKAnd please, wingnuts, check an actual dictionary and learn what fascism actually means, please. Fascism is a corporate-state construct and al Qae'da is stateless. Call them terrorists, call them religious fundamentalists, but learn what the fuck fascism really means before you throw the term around so freely. You just look ignorant. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINKBut Steafn, din't The Clash also tell us to... Rock the Casbah! Posted by: Keith G on October 27, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINKSteve Crickmore wrote: so the way we fight back is by heavy collateral damage, extrordinary rendition legalising and making fun of torture, the Geneva Conventions ala Dick Cheney and then allying ourselves with the "Iran-loving, Shiite fundamentalist, death-squad-deploying government" in Iraq, run by lawless militias...Ex liberal, you had better get your child a programme so they he can tell the players. Steve, the cruelest thing we can do in Iraq is to lose. The kindest is to win. If we can win without water-boarding and other unpleasant acts, then let's not do them. But, if we eschew unpleasantness, while allowing democracy to die and terrorism to reign, that would be the meanest trick we could play on the Iraqi people. Posted by: ex-liberal on October 27, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKIf our foreign policy is focused primarily on the fear of what our enemies might say about us rather than on the substance of what's really happening, we're helpless. It's not just foreign policy -- the entire governing philosophy of the Republican Party is to focus on the appearance of things rather than the substance. On the domestic front, it's resulted in policies that sound good by name (Clean Skies, for example, or the Medicare drug bill) but, once examined, turn out to do the opposite of what they promise. On the foreign policy front, it's resulted in a strategy that while it claims to be tough on terror has let Osama bin Laden go free and turned Iraq into a terrrorist cesspool. Al-Qaeda will always claim victory, after all. Which puts them on the same page as the GOP -- no matter what happens in Iraq, Bush and Cheney will always claim that we are winning -- because they've redefined "winning" down to the level of "not actually dead." Bush is like Monty Python's the Black Knight -- rolling around on the floor, armless and legless, but still bleating proudly that he's the winner. I miss Joe Strummer. And all the dead Ramones. The day Joey died, in his honor I stayed in bed all day and took downers. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINKif we eschew unpleasantness Worst.Torture appology. Ever. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINKHow many more people do we have to kill in a vain effort to justify the deaths that have already occurred from Bush's folly? What cmdicely said. We will also be saving some treasure along with lives. Posted by: Mazurka on October 27, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINKthe cruelest thing we can do in Iraq is to lose. The kindest is to win. heh, heh. What witless pablum. Posted by: Keith G on October 27, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINKThe percentage of the Iraqi insurgency that are actually terrorists in the Al Quaeda sense is around 5-10%. The vast majority are homegrown Iraqi militias. So saying the "terrorists" will win is almost completely inaccurate. A more correct statement is, if we leave, the Iraqi militias will likely engage in a full-blown civil war, resulting in a greater suffering for the Iraqi people. The only reason to stay is because we have to clean up the mess Bush created - it has nothing to do with our security. Nothing. The day Joey died, in his honor I stayed in bed all day and took downers. Rock on, GC. Rock on. Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINKJerry, Bremmer tried that Republican utopian approach empire lite: no unions, full privatization, America corporations no bid contracts . It didn't work, not surprisingly... well except maybe to Dubya and company. The Iraqis are not Vietnamese of 2006...I see the Iraqi immediate future obviously more as that of the black veil and the black market, rather ruled of capitalism lite. Posted by: Steve Crickmore on October 27, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINKMichaelScheuer becomes more clueless by the day. Let him join Mel Gibson and go back to Tridentine, or even pre-Tridentine, Catholic purity. Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 27, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINKAnd please, wingnuts, check an actual dictionary and learn what fascism actually means, please. Well since a lot of these fearnuts are freaked out by burkas, perhaps they mean Islamofashion. Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on October 27, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINKwhy didnt we just defend iraqi borders and let the people of iraq detirmine there own politics instead of demanding this is the way it is going to be. as americans we should look at that since that is what we preach. we are a country that fought for its freedom and know we go tell other people they have to have it. am i the only one to see this please let me know. The only reason to stay is because we have to clean up the mess Bush created - it has nothing to do with our security. Nothing. Except, of course, that there's nothing at this point we can do to clean up the mess Bush created -- not, that is, without bankrupting ourselves and putting our entire society on a war footing. We simply do not have the military might to pacify Iraq. (And thanks, George, for making that point clear to the rest of the world. Heckuva job). You don't ask the bull to clean up the mess it's made in the china shop -- you just try to get it out of the china shop, fast, before it can do any more damage. Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINKWell since a lot of these fearnuts are freaked out by burkas, perhaps they mean Islamofashion. Mr. Thripshaw 1 Wingnuts 0 And people forget that all the over-the-top fashion sense of the "faithful" actually has it's roots in Arab tribal tradition, and you can't find a single defnitive passage in the Koran dictating burqas or Arab straps. What!? He can't say Arab strap in a family blog! Posted by: JeffII on October 27, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINKToo good Henry, to good. And thanks Stefan (or is it Stephan?) :) Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINKIf our foreign policy is focused primarily on the fear of what our enemies might say about us rather than on the substance of what's really happening, we're helpless. Al-Qaeda will always claim victory, after all. Kev, Kev, Kev... you've forgotten Rule #1. Words speak louder than actions. It worked for Bush on 9/11 and Katrina, and it'll work for Osama too! Clap louder! Posted by: scarshapedstar on October 27, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINKUm...did you ever consider that Iraq might actualy suceed? Posted by: SonlitKnight on October 27, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINKthat was almost as good as my post stefan Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on October 27, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINKUm...did you ever consider that Iraq might actualy suceed? Posted by: SonlitKnight As much as I liked that scene in Bruce Almighty, no. Posted by: JeffII on October 27, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINKAndy wrote:The percentage of the Iraqi insurgency that are actually terrorists in the Al Quaeda sense is around 5-10%. The vast majority are homegrown Iraqi militias. So saying the "terrorists" will win is almost completely inaccurate. This point is extremely salient. Lumping all resistance and violence in Iraq together and calling it terrorist is common rhetoric, and is grossly misleading. It is sad that so many cant scratch a bit below the surface and see this. Son-lit knights started this whole schism a millenium ago. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINKmaybe their freedom fighters? hmmm Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on October 27, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINKIf our foreign policy is focused primarily on the fear of what our enemies might say about us rather than on the substance of what's really happening, we're helpless. As I said above, this is merely the exporting of the Republicans' electoral strategy to the realm of foreign affairs. Since they long ago realized that Americans would recoil in horro if they ever took a good look at the truth of the Republicans' anti-gay, anti-family, anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-minority, antis-science, anti-worker, anti-American policy positions, they learned to disguise the truth of what they were trying to do behind a friendly mask. They figured out that they could fool many of the people most of the time if, quite simply, they lied about what they were doing. This worked so well for them in winning elections that they came to believe their own propaganda, though, and soon concluded that they could use the same tricks elsewhere -- that, for example, merely pretending they were winning in Iraq would make everyone believe it. Unfortunately, though, Shiite militias and Sunni death squads are a little more hard-headed than the average American voter, and their response to Bush's "we're winning!" was "oh yeah? Prove it." It's easy to fake compassion. It's hard to fake a war. Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINKSteve, Fuck Republican Utopia. I am saying we get the hell out, we stop pissing people off, we kill Osama, we leave Iraq to settle its own problems, and we, from the outside, encourage trade with them, and let MTV, Victoria Secret, Wal*Mart, Dell, etc., turn them into maquiladoras. I dislike free trade, so we encourage fair trade and accept free trade. Like I said, after we got out of Vietnam, our chances of winning their were much improved. We just had to redefine winning to something useful and expand the timeline. Look at Afghanistan producing more heroin than ever. What should we have done there? Stabilized the situation and encouraged levis, the gap, and clothing manufacturer or cotton user to go over there and create jobs. With real jobs and real industry and fair trade, we would have won that war too. Yes, it's going to be really shitty there for awhile regardless of whether we are there or not, unless we put in Shinseki's 400,000 troops and get some competent leadership and even then, at this point, it may still not be possible. So we get out, do what we can to protect Kurds and other populations, and let them deal. And then we co-opt them like we did the Vietnamese with Madonna and trade. Posted by: jerry on October 27, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINKWhat!? He can't say Arab strap in a family blog! No, he just can't say Arab strap-on. Now Stefan owes me a keyboard... Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINKThis point is extremely salient. Lumping all resistance and violence in Iraq together and calling it terrorist is common rhetoric, and is grossly misleading. It is sad that so many cant scratch a bit below the surface and see this. It's an old tactic of authoritarian movements to demonize their enemies this way -- the Nazis called the various European resistance movements "terrorists," too; the Soviets did it to the mujahideen, and the various Central and South American military regimes justified their death squad murders and "disappearings" of nuns, priests, students, and labor organizers by claiming they were fighting "terrorism." Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINKwe won the war against saddam we lost on forcing democracy on people that have different beliefs Posted by: mr maki mmmkaayyy on October 27, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINKEx liberal..Though still a small d democrat Unfortunately if we put it to the Iraqi people not their elected politicians, 'better the devil you know than the one you don't(us)..Anyway Bush is committed..he will go down with ship...You have my sympathy there aren't any good options here.. And please, wingnuts, check an actual dictionary and learn what fascism actually means, please. Fascism is a corporate-state construct and al Qae'da is stateless. And, even if one considers that new caliphate that al-Qaeda wants to form as a recipe for a new theocratic superstate (which seems fair), its not at all clear that it would feature the kind of corporatism that is the centerpiece of fascism. Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINKAny sex education is immoral, single or not. Thus sayeth the Lord. Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on October 27, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINKcutting and running What the fuck is wrong with cutting and running? I won't sign a recruit that can't cut or run. Posted by: Bobby Knight on October 27, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINKA Conservative Plan for Iraq Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people. Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept thatregardless of how we got therewe are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bushs nose in Iraqs difficulties is also a priority. This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between stay the course and get out now. Some Truths 1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they dont have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have. 2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differencesbut concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse. 3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.) 4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilianssuch as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaedain part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools. 5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollahthat we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; its so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries. 6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world. From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children. New Directions Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must: 1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population. 2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting. 3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights. 4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cubas off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies. Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region. We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand. Posted by: John Konop on October 27, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINKSHORTER KEVIN DRUM: A losing foreign policy that: a) kills and maimes thousands of Americans, or b) spares thousands of Americans from being killed or maimed. Gee, ah, duh, dat's a hard qweschun. i dunno [drool] Posted by: justfred on October 27, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINKSo much to consider. A policy that saves thousands of American military forces from being killed or maimed, or, A policy that causes thousands of American military forces to be killed or maimed. Wow, as Jack Benny used to say, "I'm thinking, I'm thinking". And he was just worrying over his money or his life. Geez, just for kicks, I think I will have a go with Number One. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 27, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINKJohn Konop, at base I don't have much of an issue with what you typed. I have a question. The day after the virtually-autonomous regions were created, I am fearful that the ethnic cleansing would begin in spades. The Kurds will want to clear the Arabs out of Mosel and Kerkuk, and I wouldn't want to be a Sunni living in Basra or Baghdad. What do you propose to do about this? Americans have a statistically higher likelihood of significant injuries or death from bee stings and falls from ladders, but we haven't launched a "war on ladders". Silly isn't it? So is all this waste of American money and blood on a ragtag bunch that could be put out of business with some good, coordinated international police work. In fact, most of the leaders of al-Qaeda have been taken out that way. To have a $470 billion "defense" budget and not have quality health care for all Americans is the height of madness and the end of American democracy, unless we end it soon. Vote Democratic on November 7th! Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 27, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINKTonight on Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields said that he understands a top General has advised the administration that we should pull all troops out of Baghdad to hardened bases. This would leave the Iraqis in charge of dealing with the insurgents. Shields was repeatedly asked the name of the General, but he would not say. However, Lt Col Rich Lowery, formerly of the 102nd and one half Airborne and now on permanent assignment to the Non Rational Obfuscation Online program stated that with respect to his vast military experience, this idea would not work. He had run War Games with his GI Joe's against Jonah Goldberg's Barbie Dolls and it did not compute. And if it don't compute, you must refute. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 27, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK...And if it don't compute, you must refute. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 27, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK So, what would work? 'cos it definitely doesn't now. kevin, you've answered your own question. the SUBSTANCE of what happens in Iraq is the only thing that matters. regardless of what hppens there, they CLAIM pr victory. as they alwys have. you have to know them to beat them. though many claim we have a choice here, in reality we have none. there is only one choice once you enter battle. whether or not you achieve it. Vietnam, and its horrible contiuum which we exist with to this moment, is ample evidence of that. Posted by: neill on October 28, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINKI wondered why, if Bush knew WMDs were a bogus threat ( and if I were silly enough to believe that spreading democracy nonsense you could sell me ocean front property in Arizona ), the occupation of Iraq had to proceed. We must be getting far enough along in the game to guess by now and it is suddenly coming out just in front of the election. Can anyone spell timetable ? The proposition for partition is suddenly in full cry. Isn't that odd ? Posted by: opit on October 28, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK苗条身材 蚊帐 mosquito net 蚊帐用品，旅游蚊帐，防虫蚊帐，儿童蚊帐，广东蚊帐厂 蚊帐 mosquito net a factory that produce mosquito net 蚊帐厂 蚊帐 蚊帐 蚊帐 蚊帐 蚊帐 蚊帐 针织厂 knitting mosquito-curtain, 蚊帐, knitting Posted by: 565654 on October 28, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINKAl says, "Unfortunately liberals don't understand the nature of the enemy. We know that the enemy wants to attack America again. Liberals and Democrats propose nothing but obstruction and constant second-guessing." Only two mentions of the word "liberal." Is Al going soft on us? FYI, Al, on the Iraq issue Democrats (some of whom are liberals, like me) line up more closely with the generals than at any any time since WWII. Posted by: pj in jesusland on October 28, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINKWhy is everyone so afraid of what al Qaida thinks? "there is only one choice once you enter battle" Very popular viewpoint on Iwo Jima and Okinawa among Japanese forces. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 28, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINKWhatever is the future of Iraq will not happen as long as we're there to provide "security and training." The President saying if we pull out it will turn all the oil over to the terrorists is nonsense! The moneyed interests of Iraq and its neighbors will take care of the terriorists in very short order. Haven't you noticed that religious leadership gets used to money and the "good life" real quick? Dead customers don't buy oil! And, if you don't reliably provide the oil, the customers will develop other forms of energy and you will have to eat your oil. Never going to happen. Don't forget - Greed trumps all! As far as our friend Israel? They chose their neighborhood. Give them a few H-bombs under the table and wish them luck! It has taken Bush 3+ years to even start to hint about maybe one day he'll lay out what victory means. Can't do it too soon. The enemy would adapt and wait. Short of genocide, of course, the enemy will always adapt and wait. We overthrew a strongman Sunni-leaning regime that stood against Iran. We claimed that we were there to permit democratic rule. Of course, that means that Iranian leaning Shia will take power. And we can't have that. If Walt Kelly were alive today the situation would kill him. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 28, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINKLike others, I was upset by the title of Bergen's article in the NYT, "What Osama Wants", but I kept reading because I've come to respect his opinion. Toward the end of the article he modified the apparent "stay the course" line of the article: "While withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq would probably tamp down the insurgency and should be done as soon as is possible, a significant force must remain in Iraq for many years to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq. That can be accomplished by making the American presence less visible; withdrawing American troops to bases in central and western Iraq; and relying on contingents of Special Forces to hunt militants."
"The highest ranking or certainly one of the highest ranking men in the United States military today has recommended that we remove all troops from Baghdad, all American troops from Baghdad." Mark Shields - Leher News Hour 10/27/06 now a little off topic.... did anyone see bill oreilly on oprah? at one point a woman said she wished there would be less moral relativism and more absolutes... bill whole-heartedly agreed.. then later....when confronted with america having killed innocents in iraq... bill launched into a moral relativist screed on how bad saddam was..compared to the death toll america caused... without any sense of irony.. i laughed.. I'm surprised Scheuer, formerly of the liberal CIA, disagrees with that assessment. Yeah, that CIA is SOOO liberal. Ask the Central Americans how liberal it is - or perhaps the Vietnamese, or Chileans. Yeah, The Company is a hotbed of hippie radicalism if I've ever seen one . . . [BTW: what a blinkered fu**ing idiot you are] Posted by: chuck on October 28, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINKOsama_Been_Forgetten, whom I usually consider to be a thoughtful commentator, wrote the following: If we started a draft, and rounded up 600-900k more US troops, sent them to Iraq, and imposed order - yes, a LOT more innocent Iraqis would die. But the end result would not be a failed state. OBF, buddy: do you *really* think the American people would stand for a draft? I think you and I both know the answer to that question. In other words, this isn't really an *option* at all, but an escapist fantasy. Posted by: chuck on October 28, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINKnotthere, The point was that when confronted with information to pull out of Baghdad which had come from a top General, smirky Rich Lowery of the NRO said that it would not work. Lowery is another chickenhawk who never served, but is sooooo knowledgable about military operations. He did even consider whether this plan might force the Iraqi government to stand up to the insurgents and to reduce our casualties. He, merely, and smirkingly, dismissed it out of hand, probably because it was not the current company line from Cheney. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 28, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINKThe idea of not winning ijn Iraq appalls me. War is tough. We have fought and won wars that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops. The question is whether Americans today have the courage to defend our values and our security. And perhaps you could tell us what "victory" is? If it involves the Iraqis ever ceasing to resist our occupation of their country, you are fantasizing, you are high, or both. You can't build a structure on a shaky foundation, and the historical foundation of our occupation of Iraq is as flimsy as a fucking pancake. We have no business there. Let's stop forcing ourselves on them - we have no right to do that - no justice = no peace. Posted by: chuck on October 28, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINKWe can only talk about Iraq using sports metaphors (bridge in this case, good God!) if we know what our goals are. In case anyone's paying attention, al-Qaeda isn't too welcome in Iraq, either. Kevin has moved from lameness to incoherence on Iraq. He claims "If we stay in Iraq, it's a substantive win [for Al Queada] because it helps recruiting and provides a cause for militant jihadists to rally around. If we leave, Osama & Co. will claim that they caused the mighty United States to leave with its tail between its legs." Kevin considers a "subtantive win" in a war to be something that helps recruiting and a cause. No, my naive liberal, that is not a "substantive win" in a war. And, Kevin also talks in circles, because what he considers a substantive win - help recruting and a cause -- also would be the result if we cut and ran. So the only way to produce a different result than the "substantive win" for Al Qeada is to stay and achieve a real victory. Kevin also asserts, "Al-Qaeda will always claim victory, after all." What brillian analysis -- let's cut and run because the bad guys are going to claim they won anyway. Any doubt why the rest of the country is leery about giving power to liberal democrats? brian: You haven't a prayer of being able to define what a "real victory" would entail. Short of genocide, that is. Okay now ... let's hear the empty platitudes about "killing all the terrorists." We await with bated breath ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 28, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINKBob: My comment was not to start a debate about what real victory would be. It was to show how illogical Kevin's comment was in terms of his definition of what constitures a "substantive win" for Al Qeada if we stay. He could not see beyond the purported recruiting bonus and helping the cause effect of staying and he declared that would be a substantive win for Al Qeada. [By the way, I don't see how seeing fellow travelers getting blown up in Iraq is a recruiting tool, but we can leave that to another day and I don't expertise in understanding the Muslin culture/mindset.] The real issue related to staying is the result on the ground - who wins militarily and how the Iraqi government fares. I realize there are no guarantees about how that will turn out and there are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic. But it mystifies me how Kevin or others cannot see that those are the issues that will determine the "substantive win" in Iraq. Kevin's post seems stupid with respect to "substantive win." Posted by: brian on October 28, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINKEven with a draft - assuming Mandrake the Magician was around to get people to sit still for it - it would take how long to get people trained and deployed while the situation continued to worsen ? It still wouldn't do anything for "Identification : Friend or Foe" concerns in a place where Americans don't speak the language, appreciate the culture or the religions or have a network of friends and associates to clue them in to goings-on. If this was a matter of tendering a sales contract perhaps people would see this was not exactly the most positive set of conditions to expect U.S. preferences to turn out the same way people with ideas of their own will choose for themselves : especially since the reps currently in place are either shooting up the place or standing back while the locals do their thing. Posted by: opit on October 28, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINKThe idea of not winning ijn Iraq appalls me. ex-liberal at 6:08 PMWe have also fought and lost wars that cost thousands of American lives. Americans of courage and those with a moral core have seen the futility and error of starting and continuing this war. There is no such thing as "islamofascism." It is just a propaganda slogan from rightist like "stay the course" and "staying is winning, leaving is losing." The only ones in a state of denial are those fools who still believe in Bush and believe in his illegal, immoral war of lies, greed and incompetence. al-Qaeda to rejoice? Lately they have been mostly whining. papago 6:23 PMIs that why the RNC re-used their old propaganda tapes for a Bush commercial, they were feeling sorry for bin Laden? .the cruelest thing we can do in Iraq is to lose. The kindest is to win. ex-liberal at 6:41 PMBush's incompetence has already lost. There is no reason to send more soldiers to die for a mistake. If torture isn't morally wrong, nothing is. To the people of the world, we have become the torturing terrorist and a greater threat to world peace than anyone. It's always the gutless stay-at-home armchair warriors who shout the loudest for "Victory!" Why is everyone so afraid of what al Qaida thinks? Liberal Forever at 8:47 AMTrue, and a half-way competent administration would have stopped the 9-11 attack. Bush just wanted a political opportunity to sell an Iraq invasion. Any doubt why the rest of the country is leery about giving power to liberal democrats? brian at 5:11 PMCheck the polls: The rest of the country wants to take the authority away from your incompetent lying party. A third world military has created an insurgency that has stopped the mighty Bush army in its tracks. The US controls only the ground it stands on, and judging by the exploding ammo dump of a couple of weeks ago that is sometimes in doubt. Posted by: Mike on October 28, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK Mike wrote: We have also fought and lost wars that cost thousands of American lives. Americans of courage and those with a moral core have seen the futility and error of starting and continuing this war. There is no such thing as "islamofascism." It is just a propaganda slogan from rightist like "stay the course" and "staying is winning, leaving is losing." The only ones in a state of denial are those fools who still believe in Bush and believe in his illegal, immoral war of lies, greed and incompetence. I wish Mike were correct that there's no such thing as "Islamofascism". One can quibble with the exact name, but Muslims are conducting terrorist attacks routinely in many parts of the globe. There have been attacks in England, worldwide riots related to the Mohammed cartoons (including the murder of a nun and the burning of a church), terrorist attacks in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, the murder of a movie-maker in the Netherlands, several attacks against the US that were detected and prevented by our government, a major attack in Canada that was prevented, not to mention the earlier horrific attacks in Bali, Spain, etc. Unfortunately, Mike's wishful thinking agrees with a number of leading Democratic Congressional leaders. That's why it's essential that the Dems not gain a majority. Posted by: ex-liberal on October 28, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINKI wish ex-liberal were correct that there's no such thing as "Christofascism". One can quibble with the exact name, but Christians are conducting terrorist attacks routinely in many parts of the globe, e.g., Christians rioting in Indonesia, torching cars and government buildings and hacking people with machetes. For the latest outrage, read how a Christian milita launched an attack on a Muslim school in 2000 (PRIOR to 9/11) that left 70 people dead. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/68673,4_1_JO23_INDO_S1.article There have been worldwide protests related to the "Da Vinci Code" and "The Last Temptation of Christ" (including the murder of a bookseller in Poland and riots in India), invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that have caused terrible suffering and death, the murder of American physicians by anti-abortion zealots, the installation and propping up of horrific and genocidal dictators from Latin America to the Middle East, the mass killing of Jews and undesirables in Nazi Germany, not to mention the earlier horrific enslavement of people such as the Inca Indians and the Africans. Unfortunately, ex-liberal's panty-wetting, hyperventilating, threat exaggerations are shared by a number of leading Republican Congressional leaders who need them to scare the American public into being re-elected. That's why it's essential that the Repubs not maintain a majority. Posted by: counterpoint on October 29, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频 Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 29, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
