A blog by an American expatriate living in the heart of New Europe

"It's a lateral transfer" -- George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States
my photo
  Warsaw, Poland

view profile | e-mail Gustav

*roundtrip ticket

Friday, September 24, 2004

Bush’s Credibility Issue, Part 2: Sudan and Iran.

As many of you know, Foreign Policy is my favorite issue, so it’s no surprise that I couldn’t stay away from it. Of course, I couldn’t cover it in one nice neat entry either. No no, I’ll take the opportunity to be long winded about this one. Bush’s Foreign Policy is the gift that keeps on giving.

In case you’ve just woken up from your Rove-induced hypnosis, let me update you on some world affairs. There’s a terrible crisis happening in the Darfur region of Sudan, where thousands of people are dying every day of starvation. This is happening because the Government of Sudan (GoS) has paid a motley crew of armed bandits called “the Janjaweed” to kill, rape, pillage, and destroy everything in the region. The people of Darfur are ethnically African, hence of a different ethnicity than most members of the GoS (who are mostly Arab). The women and children of the region (nearly all the men are dead) have fled to the farthest reaches of Western Sudan and to Chad. Refugee camps have been constructed, and they live there. Trouble is, no relief efforts with food (or medicine, or anything else) can get in to resupply these camps, because the Janjaweed are not letting them get through. The United States Congress has declared that the situation in Darfur amounts to genecide.

In such a situation, even the most pacifist of us could be in favor of at least sending troops to escort said relief efforts, ensuring that they reach their destination safely. Those of us who are a bit more hawkish, might find this reason for war. After all, America can’t just stand idly by while genocide is being committed. We have gone to war to stop genocide in other regions. Why not Sudan?

Because our military has been stretched too far of course. No one in their right mind would suggest full military intervention in a place such as Sudan right now. We’ve got our hands full with Iraq alone—let alone the situation in Afghanistan.

But let’s just do a thought experiment for a moment:

The U.S. never went to war in Iraq. Weapons inspectors were given time to do a thorough search for WMD. Perhaps they are still there, making sure on a continuous basis that WMD are not being produced.

Due to insecurity in Afghanistan, the U.S. increased troop numbers there, allowing it to secure cities other than Kabul only. Afghanistan has been made much safer, and the upcoming elections look to produce successful results. Because of this very responsible move, Osama Bin Laden has been captured.

What would the American public say to major troop involvement in Sudan? What would Republicans say?

Surely, there would be resistance to military action—there always is. But there would certainly be less than there had been to the Iraq War, since there is a clear cause and a clear objective. There is, this time, a smoking gun.

Republican leaders who now are stressing caution and a need for regional troops to do the dirty work in Sudan —a near impossibility due to the disorganization of most African militaries, not to mention governments (additionally, many African states are involved in other conflicts, and can’t spare the troops)— would instead insist on military action as soon as possible, seeing as human rights are being violated and the Government of Sudan has supported terrorists in the past.

Then, in our thought experiment, couldn’t we expect a great groundswell of support in the U.S. and in other countries to take action in Sudan RIGHT NOW (or even several weeks ago)? Since we wouldn’t have all the troops pinned down in Iraq, military action would be conceiveable. Since we hadn’t cooled relations toward us throughout the world, countries would be willing to join us. Since this would be a multi-troop effort (I imagine NATO action) the population there would not believe that the U.S. was trying to occupy them or turn them into a colony. Since they would be saved from immediate, life-threatening oppression the population really would greet the troops with open arms. This would be an endeavor that could show what the U.S. really stands for. An opportunity for the U.S. to really lead the world, to be an example.

Sadly, the U.S. is in a position to do no such thing. The Iraq endeavor has plunged us into a quagmire that will take years to get out of. And not only has it ruined our standing among other countries in the world, it has handicapped us. It has made us impotent in the face of the worlds biggest crisis.

Which leads to the possibility for another crisis—in Iran.

The government of Iran has refused to give in to U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment. Enriching uranium is what you do if you want to make nuclear bombs. Why hasn’t the Iranian government backed down? Surely the international community would be threatening heavy repercussions if Iran didn’t stop such action immediately.

Sadly, it isn’t.

Why not? Because no one is willing to provoke Iran at the moment. No country has the economic or military capability to stand up to Iran—except the U.S.

But once again, the U.S. can’t threaten any action, because George W. Bush has made the U.S. impotent. Iran can feel free to flout U.N. resolutions, since it knows there won’t be any repercussions.

And that’s why, on Sudan and Iran, George Bush has no credibility. When he claims that we have gone into Iraq because it’s part of the wider war on terror and for greater moral reasons, we can find that Sudan has established links with Al-Qaeda, and is committing human atrocities on a much grosser scale than Saddam Hussein was. After all, the U.S. Congress never declared that genocide was occurring in Iraq. When he says that we had to go into Iraq to show that U.N. resolutions must be obeyed, we see how that war made it impossible to enforce U.N. resolutions in both Sudan and Iran which require much more urgency.

Of course, both of these crises occurred after the start of the Iraq war, so how could we have known?

We couldn’t have. But these types of crises are not new—they happen in one form or another, in one country or another, quite often. While we can’t predict the next crisis, we can expect our leaders to put our troops into danger ONLY when it’s absolutely necessary. And we can expect them to hold to their statements about protecting democracy, freedom and human rights.

Otherwise, the consequences are instability, impotence, and a lack of credibility when real crises occur.

And these are the consequences that the U.S. and the rest of the world are paying because of Bush’s war in Iraq.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

But I thought that we didn't need the rest of the world - that we could do it all alone? Great analysis. I heard it stated before the invasion in Iraq - and I agreed with it then - the Iraq was just a diversion to what needed to be done in Afganistan. Any commitment of troops there at that time would necessarily reduce our effectiveness in the war on terror. It has not only done that, it has actually widened the war and allowed Al Qaeda to regroup. Why wasn't this obvious at the time? Why has Kerry waited so long to make this point?

- Chuck

9/24/2004 11:37:00 PM  

Blogger Gustav said...

Thanks for your comment Chuck.
Why has the Kerry team been so long in pointing out the contradictions of this war? Well, first of all, Kerry voted for Bush's authority to fight it-- I think the Democrats were unwilling to risk more flip-flop criticism. Fortunately, the word "flip-flop" has been used so much that it's starting to lose meaning. (Notice the rhetoric change in the Republican camp: from "flip-flop" to "blows with the wind"-- new words, same criticism) People are starting to see that there's nothing behind it-- hence, the Kerry team can step out on Iraq-- the Republicans can make very little momentum with EVEN MORE of the flip-flop argument.
Secondly, Democrats have been called wimps for so long, and it's cost them so many points politically, that they want to avoid the wimp image at all costs. Remember, according to Bush and the neo-cons, if you're against war you're against fighting for Democracy. Surprisingly, the Left has finally neutralized this argument by repeating the fact that you can be against the War and patriotic at the same time. Rhetoric about the Republicans not having a monopoly on patriotism has been especially effective.
Thirdly, Kerry first wanted to make this election about jobs, not the war. Democrats had tunnel vision, and were convinced that James Carville's mantra, "It's the Economy, Stupid" held for all elections at all times. Although Tip O'Neil was right when he said "all politics is local," and the Economy has a bigger impact on local politics than a war in a far away place (despite local boys being killed and injured), because of the media coverage it's received, the war this time has pervaded all politics-- local, national, and world. Jobs is a meat and potatoes issue for Democrats, but Kerry has already convinced the country that he'll do a better job on the Economy. (He consistently gets higher marks than Bush in polls where people are asked who will manage the Economy better.)It's the War in Iraq that has got both Democrats and Republicans really fired up this time, and it will be THE critical issue for those voters who are still undecided. By accepting the challenge, and fighting this battle where Bush wants him to-- on Iraq-- Kerry gains an opportunity to show Bush's real weaknesses there. Have you noticed that this week a middle-class- tax-cut extension passed? The Republicans haven't even tried to score any points on that issue because they're too busy defending themselves on Iraq. They know too, that even if they make gains due to this extension, fighting over the economy is a losing battle for them. This extension was highly bi-partisan, and Kerry supports it. If they bring it into the spotlight, they endanger starting a discussion on upper-class tax cuts, which won't make them very popular.
The Kerry team was recently shaken up-- lots of former Clinton campaigners have been hired. The change shows in the sharpness and coherence in Kerry's rhetoric lately. And I think the switch of focus from Jobs to the War in Iraq is their doing as well. They're right to move the focus-- we can see that it's having an impact in the polls already. Keep your fingers crossed. Kerry is making a push in a buildup before the debates. It's gonna be a close one boys and girls.
I hope you like the new format. I can see that there are some problems already, and I'll try to fix them. I'm quite new at making these web pages, and I'm learning to change them by trial and error. I'm by no means satisfied with the current layout, so expect many more changes for a while yet.
Stay tuned.

9/25/2004 02:04:00 PM  

Blogger Redneck Texan said...

After all, America can’t just stand idly by while genocide is being committed.What about you? What about the other 190 nations besides the US that make up the United Nations? Why cant y'all take care of Sudan without waiting for US leadership? Is something stopping you from doing what you think is right? Make up your mind, do you want the US to be the worlds policemen or not?

Quite frankly we are tired of being looked to to fixing every International crisis.

300 million people in the EU, and you cant take care of Sudan or Iran, what to hell is a matter with you.

You better quit worrying about American politics and start paying attention to whats happening in Germany now. Their experiment in social democracy is failing, and German nationalism is raising its ugly head again. Why dont you Europeans get together and nip that in the bud, so our children dont have to come fight your battles again.

9/26/2004 03:13:00 AM  

Blogger Gustav said...

Thanks for your comment Mr. Texan.

First: "What about you??" Redneck, (--can I call you Redneck? --you can call me Gustav) I am an American expat living in Warsaw, not a European. Hence the "our troops", etc. But I'll try to make that clearer somewhere on the page.

Regardless, you make a good point. I too am irked at the rest of the world looking to the U.S. to be the policeman of the world. I would indeed eagerly welcome ANYBODY'S intervention in Sudan (Alas, Polish troops are tied down in Iraq). As for Iran, the argument could be made that other countries need to increase their military spending and/or decrease their economic ties with that country (although I wouldn't make that argument)-- at the moment the U.S. is the only country on Earth willing or able to put muscle behind the U.N. resolutions.

The point is that because of the Iraq War, the U.S. couldn't begin to think about military action in these places even if it wanted to.

The Crises in Sudan and Iran are not only great moral issues, but they also constitute problems which directly threaten U.S. security. The United States shouldn't intervene because it's the only country who can (not true in the case of Sudan) nor because it's the world's policeman (it can't be), but because it's the right thing to do, and because it serves our security interests.

I don't think I have to make the argument that the crisis in Sudan is a moral issue. Even you, Mr. Texan, must agree that what's happening there is abhorrent. I also sincerely hope that you believe that the possession of nuclear weapons by extremist governments is both morally wrong and a threat to U.S. national security. But what's happening in Sudan is also a threat to the security of the United States-- not so much in the short term, but in the long term. Poverty, religious tension and violence are the key ingredients for terrorism-- all of which Sudan possesses in ample quantities.

Of course, these are moral and security issues not only for the U.S., but for the wider world, and you are right to point out that the U.S. isn't the only one who should be doing something about them.

But the U.S. IS ONE of the countries (the strongest, and most prestigious too) that should be doing something about them. Problem is: now it can't.

While there were indeed great injustices occurring in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, they were certainly no greater than others occuring in other countries at the time. And they were certainly no match for what's happening in Sudan at the moment. Additionally, unlike Iran, Saddam didn't have any nuclear weapons (widely known even BEFORE the war) nor any other WMD. Isn't the effort in Iraq then at best a misguided adventure? Isn't Bush's argument that it was good to start an unprovoked war there because Saddam was a badguy anyway putting the U.S. square in the position of world's policeman, rather than a country which defends its own security interests?

No, I don't think that the U.S. ought to go around solving every problem on Earth-- we can't. But I do believe that our inability to act in places like Iran and Sudan compromises our morals-- and our security.

Your point about Germany is also well taken. The problems happening in Germany at the moment are a result of some awful policies both in Germany and in the European Union (of which Poland is now a proud member). Thanks for bringing it up. I hope to examine it soon. However, for both you and me, I think I'll stick to American politics for the moment-- at least until November 2nd. For now, let me just say that no one, and I mean no one on Earth is more aprehensive or aware of the rise of nationalism in Germany than the Poles. I think you'll agree that they have good reason.

P.S.-- That's two Texans in less than two weeks. Yee- haw!!

9/26/2004 04:32:00 AM  

Blogger Redneck Texan said...

What do you want the world to do about Sudan?

The only solution is to go there and kill a bunch of them. It will be a s big a failure as Somalia.

China is the obstacle at the UNSC. They get oil from there, and will veto any resolution on sanctions. But sanctions want change the situation on the ground.

Sudan is the current front in the 1300 year old Islam spreading campaign in Africa. Wasting UN or US resources there will just be prolonging the inevitable.

Why in the heck did you move to Warsaw anyway?What was the next step, in securing our long term safety in the war on terror, after the Taliban was routed from Afghanistan? Where was a more logical starting point for reforming the region with freedom and democracy than Iraq? Look at what it has accomplished: All the Jihadis in the region that want to wage holy war are coming to where the rules of engagement allow us to bomb and snipe them off. Aint that better than invading every country in the region to get to the isolated cells of terrorist?

I think it was a brilliant way to wage the War on Terror on soil other than American or European. It brings our enemy into our "Kill Box", and the long term ( a generation at least )plan for regional reform can only be stopped by the Democratic Pacifist at home.

9/26/2004 08:25:00 PM  

Blogger Gustav said...

Thanks for the great comment Redneck. While we disagree, it's refreshing to hear a coherent argument. I wish we heard these arguments more often, rather than the venomous rhetoric about the either side being anti-Americans or warmongers. If only these arguments were brought to the American public! Then the voters could really make an informed decision. . .

I'd like to respond to your comments point by point, so here goes:

"What do you want the world to do about Sudan?"

--I want the world to make sure the relief efforts get to the refugees, first and foremost.

"The only solution is to go there and kill a bunch of them. It will be as big a failure as Somalia."

--I disagree. Sometimes I think Republicans come to the "Kill 'Em All" conclusion too quickly. Just because Sudan's problems are very difficult and very complex, that doesn't mean we must resort to direct military conflict. First, we must give the relief efforts heavily armed escorts. While some casualties may result, they would probably be minimal. An Abrams tank and an armed Hummer with well trained troops is no match for some guys on horses with torches and machetes (which is who we're dealing with in the Janjaweed). Next, a permanent solution to the Sudan problem must be reached. While I would support regime change (backed by a REAL multi-national military coalition), I understand the political realities, and would settle for repatriation, reparations, and guarantees that all minority groups' rights be protected.

"China is the obstacle at the UNSC. They get oil from there, and will veto any resolution on sanctions. But sanctions want change the situation on the ground"

--You're right: sanctions won't change anything in a country like Sudan. So, forget them. See above.

However, because China gets oil from Sudan, stability there is in their interest. Might they not be convinced to put pressure on the GoS? Surely Sudan needs China to buy their oil more than China needs to buy it. I believe a new oil agreement between Russia and China has recently been signed. . .

"Sudan is the current front in the 1300 year old Islam spreading campaign in Africa. Wasting UN or US resources there will just be prolonging the inevitable."

--What exactly is the inevitable?

Is saving millions of lives a waste of U.S. or U.N. resources? Easy for us to say from the comfort of our NATO countries.

"Why in the heck did you move to Warsaw anyway?"

Personal reasons. But if you ever want to visit, you can stay at my place. It's quite nice here (but getting colder now that it's fall). You'll have to put up with the ubiquitous John Kerry paraphernalia though.

"What was the next step, in securing our long term safety in the war on terror, after the Taliban was routed from Afghanistan?"

--Well, in my mind, the most logical step in securing our long term safety in the War on Terror after the Taliban were routed from Afghanistan was to secure Afghanistan (which is still a mess, outside of Kabul, which is only a little less than a mess).

"Where was a more logical starting point for reforming the region with freedom and democracy than Iraq?"

--You mean in the hypothetical situation that Afghanistan had been secured and made stable?

Try Jordan for one, where we have a moderate, American educated monarch and ally who might be convinced to introduce reforms quicker becuase of the War on Terror.

Perhaps Pakistan, where we have a moderate dictator (and ally) who is coming under more and more pressure to allow free elections. Financial aid for educational reform would have been a good incentive, and it would have gotten those future terrorists out of those madrasas.

Or maybe even Saudi Arabia? Maybe we could have suggested a slow withdrawal of American troops from that country if its leaders started those democratic reforms that they are so resistant to. Democratic reforms might present problems for the regime, but they're nothing compared to the problems American troops in their Holy Land present now.

Please notice that none of these suggestions include war (and are much cheaper than the billion dollars a week we're spending in Iraq!). While war might be the easiest conclusion to come to after the U.S. was so horribly attacked in 2001, it is certainly not the smartest in the long term. I'm not against The War in Iraq because I'm a pacifist (I'm not-- I support the effort in Afghanistan), but because I don't think it serves our interests in the War on Terror.

"Look at what [the War in Iraq] has accomplished: All the Jihadis in the region that want to wage holy war are coming to where the rules of engagement allow us to bomb and snipe them off."

--I'm surprised you've made such a mistake, Redneck.

The War in Iraq has accomplished no such thing. While it's true that more Jihadis are now in Iraq, it is certainly not all of them. Have you forgotten the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Jakarta, and Madrid (to name a few)? I know you said "in the region," but all of these attacks were committed by terrorists from the Middle East or can be traced back to Al-Qaeda sponsorship from the Middle East. The terrorists are outsourcing, and by no means concentrating their efforts on Iraq only.

Secondly, the most important Jihadist in the region is nowhere near Iraq. Osama bin Laden (along with his cohorts) is hiding somewhere in the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we had concentrated our efforts there, we could have bombed or sniped HIM off by now.

Thirdly, you seem to believe that the all people we are fighting in Iraq now have always been lifelong jihadists waiting for their chance to shoot rockets at the infidel Americans. While some of them are indeed such, many of the fighters we're combatting were shopkeepers or mechanics or students who didn't care about America one way or another until an American cruise missle exploded in thier sister's bedroom. We're not drawing the terrorists into Iraq, we're creating them.

"Aint that better than invading every country in the region to get to the isolated cells of terrorist[s]?"

But isn't that exactly what the neo-cons want to do? First Iran, then Syria, etc. You're right to disagree with the neo-cons on this point. More military escapades are not the solution. That's why I favor working with governments to encourage them to eliminate the cells which exist in their own countries. Where the governments are not cooperative, I support international pressure, sanctions, and finally an internationally supported, multi-national force (made up primarily of troops from a country who understand the culture and speak the language) to engage in military action as a last resort. Unilateral military action by the United States should be reserved only for situations where a clear and present danger force the U.S. to defend itself or its allies.

"I think it was a brilliant way to wage the War on Terror on soil other than American or European."

--The War on Terror must be, and is being, waged on every continent, in every country on Earth. Just ask New-Yorkers and Madridians who are trying to make sure such tragedies never happen again. The War on Terror is not waged by tanks and missles alone. . .

"It brings our enemy into our "Kill Box", and the long term ( a generation at least )plan for regional reform can only be stopped by the Democratic Pacifist at home."

Have we brought them into ours or have they brought us into theirs? Iraq would never have become a "Kill Box" (as you so delicately put it) in the first place if George W. Bush had never pusued such a dangerous policy. And, as he has proven, regional reform can also be halted by disastrous post-war planning and general disdain for America.

P.S.-- Redneck, I've clicked on your name, and it tells me I can't see your profile. I'd really like to check out your blog if you have one. If you're concerned about your privacy, please e-mail me and tell me where I can find your blog. I won't tell, I promise.

9/27/2004 01:17:00 AM  

Blogger Redneck Texan said...


Someone fron here went there, thats how a found you.

Youre welcome to comment there.

But I gotta warn you, me and my regulars can get rowdy towards the left at times. ;-) But you have shown that you can explain your POV without getting too loony.

I look forward to hearing from you there. We need more lefties to argue with.

9/27/2004 03:40:00 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gustav I post as Cap'n DOC on Redneck's blog, and your comments caught my eye. You seem to be a reasonable person from the short read I've had, so I'd like to leave a comment here regarding the Sudan: You said that the situation in the Sudan is 'complex', when it indeed, is very simple: GENOCIDE. Ethnic Cleasing. If the 'Oil-for-Food' scammers in the U.N. had not invested their ill-gotten gains in SummerHomes or other such trivialities, they'd be able to fund any number of relief efforts. Here is one case where the U.N. could provide an organized effort, without relying upon us to be the 'Good Cops'.

9/28/2004 06:18:00 PM  

Blogger Gustav said...


Please don’t be so surprised that even though I’m a Democrat, I might be a reasonable person. I come to my conclusions as a result of logical thought processes, just like you. My whole purpose in this blog is to show that although we may be at each other’s throats sometimes (or most of the time), both Republicans and Democrats really and truly want what’s best for our country. Just because you think the logical result of my opinions might sweep America into a seething sea of disaster and darkness, doesn’t mean that’s what I want. If we remember that, maybe we can bring these two parties back from the spiral into extremity in which they both seem to be ensconced.

Genocide, simple, yes. The political realities of the country and the region: very complex indeed. Fortunately, money is not a problem in this situation. Once word got out about the genocide occurring there, money and supplies flowed in—the relief efforts are organized and already present in the country. They just need protection.

No, money is not the problem, political will is. Countries have to give the go-ahead for the U.N. to use their troops (if you’re suggesting U.N. troop involvement—which I’m not sure is a good idea), and to my knowledge, no one outside of perhaps Nigeria and one or two other African nations have done so. Even those countries are balking at the challenge Sudan presents.

We need clear and strong leadership to respond to this crisis, and we need it not today, but a month ago. Where is your “strong leader?” Could he not have rallied international support around him to find a quicker solution to this problem?

Or does he simply not care? Hmmm. Ohio= 20 Electoral Votes. Sudan= 0.

P.S. Please, don’t insinuate that the U.S. “foots the bill” for anything at the U.N. The U.S. hasn’t paid their U.N. dues in years and years (at least back to Clinton, yes. . .). If you really want to know who pays for U.N. activities, it’s Japan. Look it up.

9/29/2004 03:48:00 AM  

Blogger dsc4bbcl said...

CLICK HERE FOR MY NEW SITE Escort independent abliss in Nottingham

If you´re looking for some nottingham escorts adult company but there´s much to be said for checking out nottinghams number one escort available in Nottingham. Escort abliss may make your filthy dreams come true you can be rest assured that a variety of services and that special attention to detail offered. Escort abliss offers a range of services depending on what you´re looking for from simple independant escorts uk companionship to all out pornstar fun i see People from all walks of life and my services are very very special escort services on offer, businessmen who want to invite an horny escort guest to a hotel down to those who simply want someone to talk to. Use my online website to find out more about the uk escort services and ws /a/ rimming/french/russian/ available in Nottingham. Here you´ll also find details on,uk Escort Services, Escort Agencies, Escorts, links Escorts Your guide tothe best escort linke to help you decide where to visit.

nottingham escort abliss,no1,escort nottingham nottingham uk escort all level

the best nottingham escort uk no holes barred nottingham escort [uk escort] nottingham anal escort .uk bb escort nottingham cim nottingham ws

anal nottingham [cim swollow nottingham escort] midlands escort for you abliss midlands escort number1

independent,midlands,escorts,uk can be found all over the internet but the best independent midlands uk escort is me i offer

a all night nottingham escort service i am a independent escort my fees are very good for the independent escorts of nottingham

look around my site you will see that notiinghams escort and massage service nottingham the number one lady

is abliss,midlands,escort and pornstar

midlands escort

west midlands escort

east midlands escort u.k

east midlands escort

midlands busty escort

uk midlands escort

escort in midlands

[west midlands escort u].k

madult escort, adult escorts, call girl, call girls, elegant and mature lady, escort, escorting, escort incall, escort outcall, escort england, escort girl, escort-girl, escort girls, escort-girls, escort girl uk, escort girls uk, escort girls uk list, escort glamour model, escort independent, escort private, escort raunchy, escortserious, escort service, escort services, escort uk, escort united kingdom, escort uk mature, escort , female escort, female escorts, girl sex, girls sex, glamour escort, glamour escorts, glamour model, glamour model escort, glamour modelling, housewife escort, independant escort, independant escorts, independent escort, independent escorts, analescort

3/24/2007 10:42:00 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said...

London ladies

3/24/2007 02:17:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a new escorts site /blog.

It pretty much covers london escorts related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

3/25/2007 12:59:00 AM  

Post a Comment


Create a Link

< Main

american expat piękna polska michigan, my michigan Pijemy po polsku - Kickin' it Polish style Warsaw Station on Feedburner subscribe to my feed my feed