Monday, September 27, 2004

Quick Answers

Orin Kerr, over at The Volokh Conspiracy, has challenged bloggers to justify the war in Iraq. I'll give it a shot, but, since time and other factors prevent a full defense, I'll have to give down and dirty answers. I just hope no one thinks this is the best the pro-war side has to offer.

Kerr asks three specific questions, which I'll answer in order.

1. " First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?"

I was in favor, and nothing that's happened since has changed that. The point then was how serious a threat Iraq under Saddam Hussein was. Luckily for the anti-war side, now that he's vanquished, they can sit in their armchairs and pretend he wasn't dangerous. I think the facts argue otherwise. Without going into great detail, he was an unstable, ruthless, bellicose tyrant (with sons who were no better) who openly favored anti-Western terrorism, was our sworn enemy, helped those who violently opposed us, had the capacity to build WMDs very quickly (perhaps even had them--a point not that important in the long run if he could make them whenever he wanted), and was openly seeking nuclear and other weapons abroad. Furthermore, we had been holding him down in a shaky "truce" since the 1991 war while he had been ignoring all demands, from the UN and otherwise, to clean up his act. The situation was unstable--it's doubtful the box we had him in, even if we could keep it up, would have been of any use. He seemed to be paying off powerful friends to protect himself, and was planning for the day he could break free. We even gave him one last chance to work with us, which he refused. So, we had a situation where we had a very bad actor with unknown power who was seeking to become more powerful. If there was even a 10% chance in the next decade he could get a nuclear weapon (and I think the odds were greater--happily, we'll never know) we had to make a move. (Not that there weren't other dangerous places that threatened us, but Iraq, due to its leader, was the most unstable, and probably the smartest to deal with in a military fashion.)

Of course, if you still thought it was close, the humanitarian factor should have settled it. You had a monster who killed his people (and neighbors) at amazingly high rates and had turned a country into a torture chamber. (Here's where some will ceremonially note the U.S. helped Saddam. First, our help was minor compared to the French or Chinese--we merely tipped in his direction against what many thought a greater enemy, Iran. But even if we were completely wrong, all the more reason to right it today.) The U.S. can't do everything, but that doesn't mean it can't do anything. (No one can give to every deserving charity, but that's not an argument for never doing good deeds.)

There's another reason that to me is more important that the rest, but is also the most abstract and hardest to argue. It's the truly long view. Many worry we're making enemies by attacking, but in fact, we'd been making enemies for years by being weak. (When enemies arise, you teach them there are consequences--new ones may come, but a little less each time, compared to the overwhelming number who'll join up if they know they're safe.) To put it very simply, the reasons most Muslims and Arabs hated us were not justifiable. And I don't just mean they shouldn't have killed innocent citizens. I mean their arguments were wrong, and while they may have existed for complex reasons, they were centrally there because these people had been taught racist lies all their lives. Until they change their thinking on certain key issues, trying to make peace with the more violent ones, or even having detente, is a pipe dream, and a dangerous strategy. We had been regularly attacked by Arab terrorists (not just Al Qaeda) for years and doing little in response had only emboldened them. They would kill us all if they could. (That's the true threat--9/11 only woke us up to it--that millions of Americans will ultimately die if we don't fight back.) People often talk about root causes. Well, as long as tyrants rule in the Middle East, and teach their subjects to hate the US, that is a root cause of the trouble. No one is claiming America is perfect, but we are not effectively at fault for their problems, nor is their response rational. There has to be a change in the area, one toward democracy. As tough as it is, it at least has to be attempted. It will be difficult along the way, everyone understands that--especially at the beginning--but the fruit it could bear would be helpful for all humanity. A democracy in the heart of the Middle East would be instructive to its neighbors. It would also give us better bargaining powers and make it less likely anti-American forces could gain greater purchase.

Anti-war people sometimes think they're being sophisticated when, in fact, they can't see beyond their nose. The war in Iraq has the chance to bear great, long-range fruit. To act like it's failed when nothing of the sort has happened yet is shortsighted. And to act like it'll create disaster down the road is not only unduly negative, but is missing the main point of why we're involved.

2. "Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?"

First, in any case, you've got to keep your head about you. Even if things don't go as well as hoped, no need to abandon ship. But, to be honest, things have gone better than I'd expected so far.

I don't mean to sound like a Pollyanna, but I remember the grave predictions. That we would lose 5,000 or 10,000 soldiers taking Baghdad alone, that sort of stuff. Since Iraq mostly gave up without a fight, we've done done a lot better than I thought we would. As painful and tragic as a few casualties a day are, I'd rather have that than fifty or a hundred every day for the first few months. And I also expected there might be complete anarchy in the aftermath, rather than pockets of trouble.

Let me try to put an honest but positive spin on what's going on. First, we still run the country, and are training Iraqis to take over. Things are still moving apace toward democracy. Who are our main enemies?: the Sunnis who used to run things and are unhappy they don't anymore (and once democracy comes, they'll have to make a choice if they want a piece of it or would rather keep dying) and terrorist outsiders who wish to disrupt U.S. plans. Both these types of enemies are using the tactics of losers. Orin Kerr notes there are "70 hostile attacks a day." Compare this to an actual war (which, due to Rumsfeld and others, we were mostly able to avoid), where you can have thousands upon thousands of clashes on a regular basis. Our enemies are desperate, so they use terror tactics. Their only hope is to destroy our morale and have us pull out--they know they can win no other way. We're incomparably stronger--what holds us back is we're playing by a different set of rules (as we should--and I don't just mean war rules, I also mean diplomacy rules). When they trumpet their kidnappings, they wear masks. How can people who wear masks hope to take over? As soon as the masks come off, they'll be shot. If they want to run a country, rather than nip at its heels, they have to take off the masks, but they can't.

There has been mismanagement along the way, there always is. Nothing works in a war like you hope (which I've always thought was the strongest anti-war argument in general). But you've got to keep the big picture in mind, and make sure you're always moving in the right direction, which in this case is toward democracy. In Bush's speech at the RNC, he noted how naysayers thought we were botching things after WWII, but that's because they were comparing what was achieved to some level of perfection. This has happened countless times in history--the perfect being the enemy of the good.

But let's assume things are as bad as the most negative people claim. If things are going horribly, the solution is to redouble our efforts and figure out better tactics. Even those who oppose the war should see what a complete disaster bugging out would be--or even implying we might bug out before the job is done. Leaving would probably create the worst case scenario, where true slaughter begins. And it would encourage terrorists worldwide against us--just keep fighting, America can't take it. (And note even if the country falls into civil war, I would still say that's less threatening to us that one powerful tyrant free to lead it as he chooses.)

As to the Iraqi people's attitudes, they might have thought the powerful Americans would come in and take care of all their problems, which we haven't (and never could). They were used to Saddam doing everything for (and to) them. Still, as thing get better, they'll come around. Most still believe Iraq is moving in the right direction, have hope for the future, and want a democratic Iraq with basic freedoms such as freedom of religion.

In short, I still say, taking things as a whole, the overall picture is more positive than negative. But even if you think things are bad, we can and must fight to change them, and giving up is the worst possible strategy.

"3. Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?"

This is the easiest question. I never quite understand how some can say we have no exit strategy when it's very clear. We went to Iraq (with allies) to depose a tyrant and help set up a democracy. Much of the work will have to be done by Iraqis, but the early stages are when they need the most help.

I don't know if we'll keep soldiers stationed in Iraq--that's to be worked out, just as it was in Germany. But as for our main mission, we can point to success when the country has regular elections where they freely choose their leaders and also enjoy basic freedoms. (There still might be some terrorism and violence, but Western democracies sometimes deal with these problems as well.) The Iraqi people already want this and the country is moving in this direction. They'll probably get it too, as long as we remain stalwart.

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, as long as tyrants rule in the Middle East, and teach their subjects to hate the US, that is a root cause of the trouble."

What do you think about our long-standing support of the Saud family and Musharraf? Obviously they aren't teaching US hatred to their subjects (or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, wahabism, and madrasas, are they?), but they are both undemocratic and at times highly repressive rulers who are also visibly supported by the U.S. Don't you think that at a time when we are trying to instill democracy, our staunchest allies should be something other than a desert tribal monarchy and a stylish military dictator?

I suppose, in a roundabout way, that I'm suggesting that the people of the Middle East aren't dumb. If we are to presuppose that the desire for freedom is innate in every human being, do we not then reap what we sow when we continue to support dictators? Won't it just be seen as "do as we say, not as we do?"

11:50 PM, September 27, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous objects to our "allies," the House of Saud, etc.

I don't think this argument quite flies in the face of LAGuy's post. Taking what you say as true, the situation pre war was that we had countries A, B and C in an undesirable long term situation. LAGuy argues we should have taken out A. It's hard to argue that's not an improvement, unless you perceive some complex causal link that suggests taking out A makes it impossible or more difficult to take out B and C. In fact, according to LAGuys' logic, taking out B and C is more likely and more likely to be unnecessary-that is, they'll get the message and do it themselves.

3:26 AM, September 28, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our support for the Saud family is partly because there weren't really any better alternative. But I do hope that 9/11 has woken us (and them) up and that we'll put more force on them to clean up their act. But that doesn't mean you fight them, of course. You only do that in desperate, last-chance situations such as Iraq. Remember, we even gave the Taliban one last chance to help us before we fought them in Afghanistan.

Supporting Musharraf has been a good move, short run and long run. It's better not just for us, and for fighting Al Qaeda--it's better for Pakistan. Remember, part of the argument is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As to the people in the Middle East being dumb, yeah, I think they are. The ones we're fighting deny the Holocaust, believe Zionists are behind all their problems, are horrified that women should have rights like men, and think if they take out some innocent children while they blow themselves up they'll be rewarded immediately. Even the "moderate" ones are so damn stupid they can't figure out that embracing Israel would be a great thing for them. We are facing monumental stupidity and they are the ones to blame, not us.

6:15 AM, September 28, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with most of your commentary, the only thing that I take issue with is that much of the hatred from the Arab world is unjustified, a fact that is mainly misunderstood by America.

The Arab world holds many things to be sacred, especially those things that are directly related to their religion. People from the west, in pursuit of cheap oil, travel to the regions that are considered holy to the Islamic community and flout the religious beliefs they hold dear. Such actions are tantamount to us witnessing any other culture attacking the Lincoln memorial with a baseball bat.

Women go into the region with shorts and tank tops, which is devastating to their religious leaders. We treat the region as though they are our cash cow. If they complain, we flex our muscles a little. It is this reason why the Arabs attacked us on 9/11 not in our churches nor in our civic buildings, but at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the symbol of our economic policy and the symbol of our military's might.

This practice has been going on for some time, but I do not believe that all of this has been intentional by the government or even the businessmen. Really we have not noticed the severity of the situation, nor have the people bluntly told us so, but that is not their cultural patterns. We need to begin to tolerate their ideas and viewpoints, no matter who odd or wrong they seem to us, by doing so, much of the fuel the terrorists find to attack us with will be gone, and they will be more and more hard pressed to find supporters. I believe that this has been happening gradually already, which is great.

Getting rid of Saddam was a necessity I agree. He was a tyrrant by all standards, and did not reflect the genuine respect you will find from most of the Arab world. We are not at odds with Arabs or with Islam. We are only at war with terrorists, like Saddam, his late sons, and Osama Bin Laden. Let us recognize this fact, but not ignore our role in unwittingly arriving at this point.

8:25 AM, September 28, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We managed to bring about the fall of the USSR by containment and economic pressure. That was a repressive, murderous regime. How many Americans died in the effort? Libya, a better comparison, has come around from containment and economic pressure. How many Americans died in that effort? There was NO compelling reason to invade Iraq - no WMD, no links to Al-Quaida. Saddam was no threat to us and in fact was a counterbalance to a greater threat- the Iranians. George Bush senior knew this. Have you noticed him speaking out in favor of this war? Whoever the tinpot dictator is, they always want to sell us oil at the best price they can get.
Iraq is another link in a long chain of wars, fought for the sake of fighting, to keep America up to date with our armaments, to use armaments up so that defense contractors can make more, so that the Brown & Root/Halliburtons can continue with their plundering of the world and the American taxpayer, to raise the price of oil, to appease meglomaniacal Texans' hunger for empire, and to re-elect warmongerers so they can keep the destructive cycle going.

10:17 AM, September 28, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please tell me the last post is a parody of insane leftist thinking.

10:11 PM, September 28, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, satire seems in season.

Let me get this straight: The war was justified because Arabs are taught "racist lies," even tho' "America is[not] perfect"? How does that amount to an argument for practical action?

On your point that Saddam was dangerous: Please, feel free to spell out what capacities Saddam possessed to harm Americans that have been removed through military action. Keep in mind that in ten-plus years of sanctions, Iraq was capable of acquiring... anyone? _Zero_ WMDs. The sanctions worked _perfectly_, as far as security interests are concerned, for _ten years_. And you're telling me we ought to have been trembling for fear of Iraq?

Well, of course, sanctions had more consequences than that---the humanitarian cost of the sanctions regime (more properly, of Saddam's abuse of the oil-for-food program and his wilfull starvation of his own people) was substantial. But Iraqis have died under the American occupation, too. Even assuming that fewer died under us than would have died under him---how is the difference worth 1,000 American GIs killed, and 7,000 wounded? That's not a rhetorical question: I'd like to know whether, and if so how, you justify the exchanging of Iraqi lives for Americans.

Finally, your beautiful disquisition on the Arabist promotion of anti-Western hatred. Surely true, but again, you need to supply facts, specifically showing how your supported solution will lessen the undesirable aspects of the problem. Merely showing that the problem itself is undesirable is no answer at all.

As to this last part, let me ask you some clarifying questions.

First, you are concerned about Islamist anti-Western hatred. Why should that be worse in a secular Arab state where the people distrusted their (rightly hated) government's pronouncements than in a theocratic (Iran) or quasi-theocratic (Saudi)? And if it's not worse, how could the argument for war with Iraq be compelling, but utterly disregardable with respect to the others?

Second, you say that repeated signs of weakness emboldened the terrorists. Certainly this is true of some of them---those already committed to terrorism. But equally certain is that there are some Arab Muslims not yet committed to terrorism for whom seemingly unchecked American aggression is the more likely provocation to radicalism. Why do you think the former is definitely bigger than the latter? To put it another way: bin Ladin and Al Jazeera have been promoting a worldview of the West and Islam locked in a final struggle that only one will survive. Why is sending a symbolic message to the Arab street that bin Ladin is correct more likely to dissuade Arab radicalism?

Third, you say a democracy in the area would be instructive and must be attempted. Why is this necessarily so? Israel has been a democracy for fifty years and to my knowledge still enjoys the best quality of life in the region. Where are the Arab countries clamoring to be like Israel? Further, regimes have changed in the Arab countries before, but they've never been noticeably better. Before the brutal Ayatollahs were the brutal Shahs, and it wasn't as though Saddam himself took over from a peaceful regime. Why is it inevitable that largely poor Shiites in an oil-rich kleptocracy, once given the vote, would demand a responsible republican government? Why isn't it just as likely that they demand a nationalized oil industry and aggressive Islamist foreign policy?

I write all this because I have been extremely frustrated by pro-war sentiments masquerading as arguments, feeling entitled to conclude that people like me either (as you have it) can't see past the end of our noses or (as others have put it) must surely think that Uday Hussein was a model citizen, without having put in the modicum of work to say, precisely: What is it, exactly, that is the good result that war was likely to achieve? In short, I have been frustratedly looking for an _argument_. But for all my slumming in the blogosphere, I still haven't found one. As I've said, these aren't rhetorical questions. Please: Tell me why the war was a good idea.

9:27 AM, September 30, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Let me get this straight: The war was justified because Arabs are taught "racist lies," even tho' "America is[not] perfect"? How does that amount to an argument for practical action? "

Yes, and this is quite obvious. They believe Jews and Americans and others are secretly conniving to ruin their lives. I could give thousands of particular, stomach churning examples of the ugly things they regularly say. They are taught these vicious lies from the dicators who are the real ones holding them down. Getting rid of the dictators is the one way to get at the root causes of the problem.

"On your point that Saddam was dangerous: Please, feel free to spell out what capacities Saddam possessed to harm Americans that have been removed through military action."

Piece of cake. Having any nuclear weapons, which he was seeking (while we were warning him we might attack and he was pretending to be clean) would give HIM the deterrent because he could use it. He'd figure he was a hero. No maybe losing a million America lives is no big deal, but sitting around, loosening the sanction (which were falling apart and would have died once we'd claimed we were done fooling around and gave him another chance) was the perfect way for him to go out big. Remember, it's not the WMDs (England and France have them but we're not concerned) but the actual threat of the leader.

"Keep in mind that in ten-plus years of sanctions, Iraq was capable of acquiring... anyone? _Zero_ WMDs. "

Acquiring them? They had them and used them and could make as many more as soon as was needed. And recently Saddam had been showing signs of cooperating ever more with terrorists, though there's already plenty of evience during the ten-years plus that he helped out terorists who killed Americans, something that doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest.


"Well, of course, sanctions had more consequences than that---the humanitarian cost of the sanctions regime (more properly, of Saddam's abuse of the oil-for-food program and his wilfull starvation of his own people) was substantial."

Yes, I know. Anti-sanctions nuts were claiming we were starving to death 50,000 Iraqi kids a year. Why aren't they dancing in the street today now that all those lives are being saved?

You are right about the oil-for-food scandal, which is why we were never going to get the cooperation of many leaders in the UN who were being paid off, and who would fight to loosen and discontinue the regime of sancations, thus making Saddam ever more dangerous.

"But Iraqis have died under the American occupation, too. Even assuming that fewer died under us than would have died under him---how is the difference worth 1,000 American GIs killed, and 7,000 wounded?"

Keep your eyes on the ball. Assuming you don't give a damn about Iraqis, we're talking about the long run where Saddam and his sons are capable of taking out countless Americans in one conflagration, not the mention numerous smaller possibilities. After 9/11, everyone complained why weren't we ready? Well, this time we were gonna be ready and everyone's complaining why aren't we complacent?

"That's not a rhetorical question: I'd like to know whether, and if so how, you justify the exchanging of Iraqi lives for Americans."

We're giving Iraqis a chance for a far better life. Also, we're saving their lives, compared to how many died, were tortured and were in exile under Saddam. You should save your hatred for the insance racists who right now are trying to prevent this from happening.

"Finally, your beautiful disquisition on the Arabist promotion of anti-Western hatred. Surely true, but again, you need to supply facts, specifically showing how your supported solution will lessen the undesirable aspects of the problem. Merely showing that the problem itself is undesirable is no answer at all."

I was giving a short answer, but having a Democracy in the Middle East, with the promise of more (whether they came courtesy of Uncle Sam or not) brings far greater promise for cooperation and rational actors than keeping in a system which is a daily disaster. That's another short answer but there's no space here to write a book.

"First, you are concerned about Islamist anti-Western hatred. Why should that be worse in a secular Arab state where the people distrusted their (rightly hated) government's pronouncements than in a theocratic (Iran) or quasi-theocratic (Saudi)?"

Democracies tend to be more rational. (Look at our relations with Turkey.) They don't have time to be taken away by bellicose tyrants, they're too busy trying to earn a living. They have a stake in their country and would rather not fight against a giant power that can crush them when they can lead lives of relative quiet and plenty.


"Second, you say that repeated signs of weakness emboldened the terrorists. Certainly this is true of some of them---those already committed to terrorism. But equally certain is that there are some Arab Muslims not yet committed to terrorism for whom seemingly unchecked American aggression is the more likely provocation to radicalism."


This is pure speculation, though widely believed by those for whom its convenient.

First, democracy in the long run can help bring down radicalism.

Second, the "extra" terrorists we're seeing are better explained, seems to me, by successes up to 9/11 and nearby fighting which brings them out in the open.

Third, if the experiment works, in the long run, the people have more reason to be grateful than hateful. Now that's a bit much to expect, but with open debate and freedom, they can at least calm down and think about it.

Fourth, who said we're gonna fight everywhere? We'll only do that when it's the best choice, and, in the long run, will mean we may have to fight less.

Fifth, when you're up against worldwide fascists who are regularly attacking you, the idea that you should sit and take it is kind of weird. If you do, they will eventually overwhelm you, no matter what your size. If you choose to fight, you will teach them there's a consequence and believe it or not, that will effect them. You think they don't care if they die? Well, the leaders have to teach them that, so you get the leaders. Some grow to take the place of the dead? Well, it gets less and less and more people learn it's no solution. The biggest danger is half-measures that rile them up but don't do what needs to be done.

"To put it another way: bin Ladin and Al Jazeera have been promoting a worldview of the West and Islam locked in a final struggle that only one will survive. Why is sending a symbolic message to the Arab street that bin Ladin is correct more likely to dissuade Arab radicalism?"

We are doing nothing of the type. I can see Bin Laden believing this lie, but why do you? We have made it clear over and over this is not a clash of the West and Islam (if it were, we'd win, by the way)--in fact, this is one of the racist lies we're fighting now to destroy.

What do you think we're doing in Iraq? Did we drop a bunch of atom bombs to destroy every mosque? No, we've gone out of our way to respect their religious symbols while we knocked out a cruel tyrant and are now allowing them to enjoy freedom of religion for the first time in years. Others will get the message (many in Iran do) while all those who would hold down the Arabs and the Muslims will have to worry. It's a tough message to get out, but that's because of all those lies they believe--the true root of the problem--not because of what we're doing.

"Third, you say a democracy in the area would be instructive and must be attempted. Why is this necessarily so? Israel has been a democracy for fifty years and to my knowledge still enjoys the best quality of life in the region. Where are the Arab countries clamoring to be like Israel?"

Once again, because they are taught racist lies from birth. The leaders know if their subjects every figured out what you just said, their head would be hanging from trees. The intransigence against Israel is not rational--it is preventing their lives from improving. Thus, some sort of shock treatment is needed. We let it fester and paid a price. The price so far has been small, but will get much much worse if we do nothing.

"Before the brutal Ayatollahs were the brutal Shahs"

The Shah who served from 1953 to 1979--yes, the man we installed--was far better for Iran that the Mullahs who took over. But that didn't stop the myopic left of the time from celebrating his overthrow.

Now imagine if these people get a real democracy. Why would they ever turn back?

"Why is it inevitable that largely poor Shiites in an oil-rich kleptocracy, once given the vote, would demand a responsible republican government? Why isn't it just as likely that they demand a nationalized oil industry and aggressive Islamist foreign policy?"

There are other groups in the country that will prevent them from acting so easily. Furthermore, there are differences, polls have shown, amongst the shiites. There will always be factions in countries, no matter how similar all may seem. They don't have to have a perfect demoracy, or a perfect free market--as long as they realize they are now responible for their lives, it changes a populace.

"Please: Tell me why the war was a good idea."

Can't you at least admit if we left Saddam alone, after threatening him as never before, that he had at least a small chance of acquiring a significant weapon (which we know with certainty he was seeking), and perhaps using it against us. Forget Libya, forget bargaining power, forget all the other things Saddam with a freer hand would have done. Let's say this probability of happening merely once is 10%, and the amount of our people killed (forget the destruction to the economy) is a quarter million. Okay, that's an effective loss of 25,000 Americans. That seems worth doing something about.

10:07 AM, September 30, 2004  
Blogger oakleyses said...

louis vuitton, michael kors outlet, coach purses, michael kors outlet, tory burch outlet, nike shoes, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, prada handbags, louboutin outlet, oakley sunglasses cheap, longchamp handbags, oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, true religion jeans, coach outlet, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, air max, polo ralph lauren outlet, true religion jeans, longchamp handbags, gucci outlet, louboutin, jordan shoes, tiffany and co, burberry outlet, prada outlet, louis vuitton handbags, louboutin, tiffany and co, ray ban sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton outlet, ray ban sunglasses, burberry outlet, christian louboutin shoes, michael kors outlet, kate spade handbags, coach factory outlet, louis vuitton outlet stores, coach outlet store online, chanel handbags, air max, nike free

7:57 PM, November 07, 2014  
Blogger oakleyses said...

sac louis vuitton, sac louis vuitton, mulberry, air max pas cher, michael kors pas cher, louis vuitton uk, michael kors, polo lacoste, sac hermes, nike tn, longchamp, converse pas cher, nike free, nike trainers, oakley pas cher, nike roshe run, hollister, ray ban pas cher, polo ralph lauren, nike roshe, air jordan, ray ban sunglasses, sac longchamp, timberland, true religion outlet, vanessa bruno, barbour, vans pas cher, north face, nike free pas cher, air force, lululemon, nike air max, air max, new balance pas cher, hollister, north face, sac burberry, hogan outlet, sac guess, abercrombie and fitch, louboutin, true religion outlet, michael kors, ralph lauren, air max, louis vuitton, nike blazer

8:00 PM, November 07, 2014  
Blogger oakleyses said...

wedding dresses, herve leger, lululemon outlet, canada goose jackets, nfl jerseys, canada goose, babyliss pro, mcm handbags, canada goose, canada goose uk, ugg australia, ghd, giuseppe zanotti, longchamp, uggs outlet, ferragamo shoes, nike huarache, canada goose outlet, north face outlet, soccer jerseys, celine handbags, hollister, ugg, bottega veneta, instyler, mont blanc, valentino shoes, jimmy choo outlet, insanity workout, canada goose, marc jacobs, ugg boots, ugg boots, new balance shoes, reebok outlet, abercrombie and fitch, beats by dre, chi flat iron, asics running shoes, nike roshe run, rolex watches, mac cosmetics, soccer shoes, north face jackets, vans shoes, ugg pas cher, p90x, birkin bag

9:38 PM, November 07, 2014  
Blogger oakleyses said...

moncler, vans, air max, iphone 6 cases, converse shoes, pandora charms, timberland boots, wedding dresses, lancel, moncler, supra shoes, moncler, ray ban, parajumpers, moncler, hollister, gucci, thomas sabo, oakley, rolex watches, swarovski crystal, converse, pandora charms, karen millen, montre homme, juicy couture outlet, moncler outlet, ralph lauren, links of london, hollister clothing store, louis vuitton, pandora jewelry, hollister, baseball bats, canada goose, louboutin, air max, juicy couture outlet, swarovski, canada goose, ugg, moncler, ugg, coach outlet store online, moncler, toms shoes

9:42 PM, November 07, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter