The Iraq Occupation and the Coming War Against Iran: Political Wickedness and Moral Bankruptcy

Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.
– Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

[Iran will react to a bombing attack by the Bush-Cheney administration] by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.
– Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national-security adviser to President Jimmy Carter

Israel made a large contribution to the decision to embark on this war. I know that on the eve of the war, [Ariel] Sharon said, in a closed conversation with senators, that if they could succeed in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, it would solve Israel’s security problems.
– Robert (Bob) Novak, veteran American reporter

I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
– Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman 1987-2006

There are people in Washington … who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they’re looking for ten, 20, 50 years into the future … the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region, and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq.
– Jimmy Carter, former American President (February 3, 2006)

How do you get out of a hole?

First of all, you stop digging. This is the simple lesson that the Bush-Cheney White House has so much trouble understanding. For Bush and his neocon crowd, they are militarily occupying Iraq and they intend to remain there, no matter what. It doesn’t matter that this immoral and illegal occupation has caused the death of more than one million Iraqis and killed more than 3000 American soldiers. And now, they want to escalate the Iraq war into a wider Middle East conflict involving Iran, thus making sure the United States will be involved militarily in that region of the globe for the next twenty years.

In 2002, immoral neocon officials in the Defense Department considered Iraq to be a “low-hanging fruit,” ripe for picking for its huge oil reserves, for the opportunity to displace French and Chinese oil companies, for increasing Israel’s security, for moving American military bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and for pleasing politically the end-times religious right in the U.S.—thus killing five birds with one stone. According to former CIA Director George Tenet—and this has been confirmed by former Secretary Paul O’Neill and many other insiders—the very idea of taking control militarily of Iraq was improvised and was unjustified because “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat.”

Nevertheless, the Bush-Cheney-Libby-Wolfowitz-Feith-Perle team, and their allies at the American Enterprise Institute and at the neocon Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), thought it was a win-win situation. They had decided they wanted a war under the clouds of 9/11, and nothing—truth, morality, reason or facts—could deter them from it. They were ready to lie a thousand times to achieve their goal. And they got it. But now the apprentice sorcerers do not know how to stop the infernal machine of destruction they have set in motion. They only know how to push forward and make a larger mess of it.

That type of improvisation and political wickedness is all too well confirmed by newly released transcripts of talks George W. Bush had with then-Spanish Prime minister Jose Maria Aznar, in February 22, 2003, a few weeks before the onset of the March 20, 2003 Iraq war. In these transcripts, it is shown that Bush had a criminal intent to launch a war of aggression against Iraq, no matter what, and that he turned down every Iraqi offer that would have avoided a murderous war that has killed more than one million people so far. This includes Saddam Hussein’s offer to go into exile, and for Iraq to hold free and internationally-supervised elections as well as allowing armed foreign troops to conduct unfettered inspections for weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush-Cheney regime of Neocons wanted war, and nothing could stop them. They wanted, above all, to put their hands on Iraq’s oil wealth. This is a prime example of historical grand theft, political wickedness and moral bankruptcy. Thus, this war has nothing to do with the morality of the “Just War” theory. In fact, it violates all the canons of a just and unavoidable war.

Confronted with the abysmal cowardliness, moral corruption and incompetence of the Bush-Cheney administration, Americans, on the whole, are more intelligent and more moral than their current leaders, and a large majority of them (63%) think it’s time for the United States to stop occupying illegally the country of Iraq and to stop murdering its citizens. Moreover, a good majority of them (54%) reject the blanket Bush-Cheney policy of aggression abroad, under the pretext of “preventive war.”

Similarly, the U.S. Congress, the only government branch empowered by the U.S. Constitution to declare war, is officially on record as being against maintaining American troops in Iraq. First, the House of Representatives, on July 12, passed a bill, by a vote of 223 to 201, to withdraw American combat troops from Iraq by next April 1st. Second, in a July 18 vote, a majority of U.S. Senators voted 52 to 47 to bring home most American combat troupes from Iraq by May 1, 2008. So, both the American people and the American Congress want this war to end, and soon.

But the truth is that Bush II does not give a hoot about American democratic opinion, as he openly demonstrated recently. And, he does not much care for the U.S. Congress either, or the courts for that matter. In fact, Bush has a deeply ingrained tendency to disregard the truth, the law and the U.S. Constitution.

In Iraq, the Bush-Cheney regime is still building “enduring” military bases in order to occupy Iraq militarily for decades to come. They even talk openly about the half-century American military presence in South Korea, as if this were a useful analogy.

At the end of the day, as Bush has said: “I do not need to explain”. As the British magazine The Economist has warned, the world should beware of a President “who has little left to lose,” the more so if he has hardly any moral principle and is indifferent to the opinions of the majority of Americans.

It is doubtful that a George W. Bush in denial and his delusional neocon advisors for permanent war will ever listen to reason and morality. To the contrary, the lame-duck president is still firing anybody who does not agree with him, while listening to chief Neocon Dick Cheney. The American people see that, and that is why nearly half of them want President George W. Bush to face impeachment, while about 54 percent of American adults now want the US House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, because he is seen as the chief spreader of lies to launch the illegal Iraq War. As of now, there are twenty-one Congressmen who support the articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney contained in bill H Res 333. If and when American troops leave Iraq, there will be fewer deaths because there will be fewer killers, both official soldiers and mercenaries.

The latest victim of Bush’s pigheaded approach to foreign policy is General Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Having started a war of aggression on his own, against the advice of most thinking people within the military, political, legal and intelligence communities, and having placed himself squarely against international law, George W. Bush is reduced to shifting the blame for his failures to others. Bush is afraid of having honest people around him, especially a man of the caliber of General Pace, who is a moral man. General Pace, in the spirit of the Nuremberg Charter, has publicly said, “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral” (Feb. 17, 2006). And since General Pace thinks it is immoral to be the first to use nuclear weapons, one wonders if Bush has fired General Pace because he intends to use nuclear weapons in the coming months.

The U.S. Congress should wake up before it is too late. When armaments are in the hands of immoral people, the danger is high that a nuclear war could be launched. Indeed, people in power who have no morality and no judgment can be expected to do anything, including killing millions of people, to save face.

In the book The New American Empire, I asked this fundamental question: Why is the Bush-Cheney administration so bent on using lies and distortions in order to justify a war whose end result would be predictably to eliminate from power the Iraqi Sunnis in favor of Shi’ites allied with Shi’ite Iran, thus automatically making Iran the dominant power in that unstable region? One has to remember that Sunnis make up 85 percent of all Muslims around the world and are dominant in the Arab world. Now that they have realized their error in creating a Shia-dominated Iraq, the Neocons behind the Bush-Cheney team want them to up the ante and to attack Iran, thus turning the Middle East into an even larger murder scene than it is now.

The American people have never received an answer to that simple question. That is why they are so dissatisfied with George W. Bush, but also with the Republicans and the pro-war neocon Democrats in Congress. This indicates that there is a huge void of leadership in the United States today. On this score, the most moral Democratic 2008 candidate for president is, by far, former senator Mike Gravel from Alaska. The very fact that the mainstream media boycott him should be a good indication that this man stands on the side of the people.

According to polls, Americans are very dissatisfied with both major political parties because of their inability or their unwillingness to reflect the wishes of the people and to stop the immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq. In fact, more than two-thirds of Americans believe their country is on the wrong track, but nothing is being done about it. In fact, average Americans are losing hope that they will ever be heard by the Washington D.C. political nomenklatura that runs the government while paying scant attention to the people.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and author of the book The New American Empire. He can be reached at: rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Rodrigue, or visit Rodrigue's website.

20 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 7th, 2007 at 6:31am #

    Absolutely. And the finest lines I’ve read in DV about Iran since Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar concluded his September 26th article, Consequences of an Imposed Regime Change in Iran, with a request. “Please remember that as the German proverb says: A great war leaves the country with three armies: an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.”

  2. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 7th, 2007 at 7:46am #

    Come on, people. DV is putting up articles on Saturday and Sunday, for crying out loud.

  3. iyamwutiam said on October 7th, 2007 at 10:28am #

    As Mr. Tremblay is an economist – I would have loved to see an analysis on the implications of the invasion of Iraq and establishing permanent bases – from the perspective of dollar hegemony – and its implications on America’s spiraling debt.

    In addition: it seems to me VERY interesting that this quoted deficit is only federal and does not take into account state deficits and more importantly corporate deficits (which seem to find themselves in the federal deficit (example Long Term Capital Alliance, Enron, Worldcom, the recent mortgage backed CDOs which will be absorbed by the Fed in the guise of Fannie Mae).

    There seems to be a LOT of confusion in terms of the federal deficit (which I am sure is not accidental). It would be nice for someone of Mr. Tremblay’s background to perhaps educate and further enlighten the readers. Although a complex topic – I find it astounding that the US can fund military activites, subversive activities (velvet revolutions, recent election in PAkistan, Mexico etc etc), as well their own earmarks/porkbarrels) at the rate they do.

    Obviously being a reserve currecy affords certain leeway – but rationally speaking the US especially in recent times (in my view) must have gone beyond the borders of repayment of debt – and default seems to be at our doorstep.

    So I am not sure – how China/Japan etc continue to take IOUs, why this level of debt is tolerated and how a country with almost a 300 percent Debt to GDP ratio can continue on -as if it IS the richest country in the world – when an objective analysis has proven time and time again – that it is the MOST INDEBTED COUNTRY in the world.

    Anyway – would love to gain clarity on this and hope Mr. Tremblay and others may help us understand this more in depth. Otherwise in my view – the constant drumbeats of war -which seem magically to find more and more allies (First Germany, France, etc) , our own democrats and even the implicit cooperation of China(as tey do not call in their debts) – seem to be to say – that the WHOLE world is giving consent to these wars for he SOLE purpose of propping up a capitalist system that by all objective measures in a complete failure and is completely illusory.

  4. Deadbeat said on October 7th, 2007 at 10:29am #

    Here’s an excellent article by William Cook and once again why Zionism’s influence upon U.S society much me confronted

    http://www.counterpunch.org/cook10052007.html

  5. Deadbeat said on October 7th, 2007 at 11:31am #

    As Mr. Tremblay is an economist – I would have loved to see an analysis on the implications of the invasion of Iraq and establishing permanent bases – from the perspective of dollar hegemony – and its implications on America’s spiraling debt.

    The dollar hegemony explanation is an interesting angle that essentially supports the “WAR FOR OIL” mantra that is intended to shift any focus away from Zionism as an essential if not the essential reason for these incursions.

    Essentially what this line of thinking implies is that nations like Iraq and Iran are challenging dollar hegemony as they move to price oil into euros thus the U.S. has chosen to invade these nation and prop up puppets that will support the hegemony of the dollar by continuing to price oil in dollars.

    The logic behind this idea is very weak on its face. The reason being is that if the U.S wants the dollar to remain strong they would not continue to pump dollars in the world markets through wars and continued debt accumulation. It would make much more sense to encourage these nations to remain on the dollar through diplomacy or through internal political coups — similar to the ones in 1953 that brought the Shah of Iran and in the 70′s brought Saddam Huessian to power.

    By contrast, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and perhaps now Ecuador all oil states are converting to the Euro. Yet there are no signs of a any massive military operation by the U.S against any of these oil producing nations. In fact Chavez stated that he has more oil in reserves than Saudi Arabia so the fact that much of Latin America is taking an independent stance especially against the “Washington Consensus” is actually more of an “economic” threat to the U.S. ruling leadership than Iraq and Iran.

    Because of the Iraqi resistance, oil production is down and the U.S. invaders has not been able to reap the benefits of any oil revenues. Clearly people don’t like their nations to be invaded and their infrastructure destroyed. However liberals and leftist has deemed the invasion of Iraq a “mistake”. Really?

    In fact the invasion of Iraq has been a tremendous success. Like Israel incursion into Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the invasion of Iraq has devastated the Iraqi infrastructure. Iraq has been “bomb back into the stone age” and will take years to be restored and now there is a plan to “partition” Iraq — exactly fitting the Zionist agenda of advancing Israeli hegemony.

    Iraq, Lebanon, the bombing of Syria and now the plans to bomb Iran’s infrastructure are all design not to advance U.S. hegemony. U.S. hegemony can easily be advanced via diplomacy or coups. Clearly what going on in the Middle East is not about U.S hegemony. It is about Zionism and the fact that Zionism is prevalent and dominant in the U.S. politics today. It was the failure of the Civil Rights movement not to address and challenge ALL FORMS of racism. That failure has allowed Zionism to flourish in the United States as candidly admitted to by Sy Hersh last week on Democracy Now.

    To demonstrate how “normal” Zionism is on the United States, Joe Biden openly admits the he too is a Zionist and he’s running for President.

  6. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 7th, 2007 at 12:32pm #

    Clearly the subjects raised by the previous two commentators are murky ones. But I can’t quite connect them with Tremblay’s article.

    Despite it being obvious that iyamwutiam is laying an emormous amount at the door of Israel, aren’t the two previous comments taken together saying, essentially, that the Bushies are brilliant? In the fall of 2003, at a college reunion, I went around screaming how stooopid Bush was, so I guess I have a bulit-in predisposition to defend the hypthesis that the man’s at best a lunatic. Which by the bye, I’ve found of great value in trying to read Naomi Klein’s recent book with a grain of skepticism.

    I would be grateful to read comments on just one phrase in Tremblay’s article — “But the truth is that Bush II does not give a hoot about American democratic opinion…” I think clarity on that point would help us all get straighter on Iran, Iraq, third party candidates, protest versus dissent, etc, etc. And hey, folks, I’m not a bit confused about what I think about that phrase. I think truer words have never been written.

  7. iyamwutiam said on October 7th, 2007 at 1:09pm #

    “The logic behind this idea is very weak on its face. The reason being is that if the U.S wants the dollar to remain strong they would not continue to pump dollars in the world markets through wars and continued debt accumulation. ”

    I would disagree- for very practical reasons. One- between Iraq/Saudi/Kuawait – you have essentially captured 60 percent of the worlds’ oil. Therefore – it is NOT necessary to expend more resourcesw with questionable return on sources such as Venezuela (tops 10 percent of the worlds oil supply).

    In addition – the INCREASING of the price of oil from 30 dollars to 80 dollars – is a tremendous multiplier (in terms of how much reserve currency an econmoy needs to hold). For example – 1 million barrels of oil a day which would require a country to keep $30M/day in Forex has now gone up to $80M. This is a difference of 1.8 trillion dollars needed in terms of dollar hegemony- therefore – the mass amount of dollars printed up for the war would be absorbed -when you view it over 192 nations and calculate that 60 percent of the worlds oil MUST be denominated in US dollars and the higher prices insures for the moment -the need to keep even MORE US dollar reserves.

    When you look at the major European powers – they are ALL in massive debt- France I thik is close to 70 percent GDP/ Debt. Italy 100 percent!! Also – more significantly they are DEEPLY embedded in the dollar hegemony system – as you could see by the fact that BEFORE the US Fed Reserve – the EU Central Bank fell over themselves in releasing 300 billion dollars of US dollars into the ‘system’ for liquidity. The massive shocks to BNP Paribas, NorthRock, and a few German buanks (I thiknk one or tw actually closed) points out this rather incestuous relationship.

    Lastly – those with enormous US dollar IOUs (Japan/China) are paralyzed with fear since having close to 2 trillion dollars of US debt (and growing) – by dumping dollars or whatever – they are essentially put in the terrible position of having to take enormous losses on these IOUs if the dollar DOES actually go into freefall-.

    Therefore – every one actually loses – and we DO have a system that is actually based on nothing more than belief- the debt ratios have reached so high globally (particularly) for the western nations – that they MUST all pretend nothings wrong or suffer the fate of RUSSIA – which basically means suffering thru 5-10 years of chaos and crime -till the situation gets so bad that an autocratic go0vernment IS te only way out.

    In Russia- the primary beneficiaries of ths chaos – the oligarchs of Jewish origins – have had their fortunes diminshed or confiscated recently as Russia re-nationalized their most important assets. The oligarchs quickly converted their assets into pounds and moved to England essentially with billions of pounds that should have re-circulated back into the russian economy to help bolster the social and economic recovery. In other words – flight of capital internationally before the capital was seized and no doubt the Europeans/US will not aid in the repatriation of russian assets since it was due to ‘capitalim’ no matter how corrupt the methodology, actors, mechanisms or motives.

    The point is – the dollar hegemony is real but its default would be worldwide (instead of say Ukraine and Eastern Europe as with Russia). Therefore – suddenly diverse sources and countries find themselves with a concensus – until they can themselves move away fro dollar assets to the point that their economies would be less effected – since all economies WILL be effected (perhaps Asia being the least effected).

  8. iyamwutiam said on October 7th, 2007 at 1:30pm #

    Au conraire mon frere-
    I by NO means havelaid this upon the doorstep of ISrael. I personally don’t think manipulators of finance have ANY shred of patriotism, ethics or even the fundamental of distinguishinging when they have gone too far. This is no more about Israel than Iraq was about removing a dictator – because if that was the case – we could start right away with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc etc. In fact – it may have escaped people who eerily similar the Mexican elections between Obrador and Calderon were to our own Bush/Gore – with the Supreme Court declaring the victor.

    BTW – sorry for the double post – it was a accident. I feel sometimes that the obvious is too often overlooked because it IS obvious.

  9. Mike McNiven said on October 7th, 2007 at 4:34pm #

    An original anti/war anti/imperialist view from a non-capitalist DV contributor who is fluent in Persian:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat09292007.html

  10. Mike McNiven said on October 7th, 2007 at 6:26pm #

    Peace with Justice for People of Iran:

    http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/030750.html

  11. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 7th, 2007 at 9:54pm #

    iyamwutiam. It is for me to apologise. I confused your and Deadbeat’s posts. Deadbeat wrote: “Clearly what going on in the Middle East is not about U.S hegemony. It is about Zionism and the fact that Zionism is prevalent and dominant in the U.S. politics today.” Not you.

    However, I don’t see that my error much affects the main points I was trying to make. And your kindly post referring to me as your friend, I regret to say, is as murky to me as your original one.

  12. Deadbeat said on October 8th, 2007 at 9:48am #

    Despite it being obvious that [Deadbeat] is laying an emormous amount at the door of Israel, aren’t the two previous comments taken together saying, essentially, that the Bushies are brilliant? In the fall of 2003, at a college reunion, I went around screaming how stooopid Bush was, so I guess I have a bulit-in predisposition to defend the hypthesis that the man’s at best a lunatic. Which by the bye, I’ve found of great value in trying to read Naomi Klein’s recent book with a grain of skepticism.

    Mr. Rowsey, you and others make the same incorrect conclusion to the points I raise about Zionism. Zionism is NOT about “laying and [enormous] amount at the door of Israel”. It about placing the focus on Zionism here in the UNITED STATES. Take a listen to Democracy Now today and listen to the Israeli guest journalist on the show. He lays an “enormous” amount on U.S. supporters of Israel. The point is these zealots have through their lobbies, wealth and influence have disproportionate amount of influence on U.S. policy. The big problem is that the left has ignore or squash any such analysis. To the left the driving force is oil or any other reason that seem to shift any focus from Zionism influence on U.S. policy. I also stated that Zionism is NOT only an issue driven by Jews but also has supporters among evangelicals and has been “normalized” with regard to discourse in the United States.

    Hilary Clinton openly supports Zionism and Joe Biden recently proclaim himself a Zionist and they are leading candidates for the Presidency of the United States.

  13. Deadbeat said on October 8th, 2007 at 9:50am #

    iyamwutiam:

    I would disagree- for very practical reasons. One- between Iraq/Saudi/Kuawait – you have essentially captured 60 percent of the worlds’ oil. Therefore – it is NOT necessary to expend more resources with questionable return on sources such as Venezuela (tops 10 percent of the worlds oil supply).

    So it make “practical” sense for the U.S. to “control” oil in the Middle East while the Latin American countries reject the Washington concensus and sell oil to China and the rest of the world at inflated prices while they shift from the dollar to the euros. Your analysis is totally impractical. As the U.S. flood the world markets with dollars that only encourages nations to shift their reserves from dollars to euros because their dollar reserves are losing value.

    Also as I stated Venezuela has more in reserves that Saudi Arabia and Latin America is in the “U.S. backyard”. U.S. hegemony and imperialism would demand that the U.S “invade and control” Latin America rather than the Middle East.

  14. Max Shields said on October 8th, 2007 at 7:35pm #

    Deadbeat,

    Your argument is repetitive and it denies and/or ignores so much US/South American history that you raise the question of your intent.

    Mr. Tremblay has made a cogent argument and he has interjected the role of Israel/zionism, but he does not deny US hegemony which Hugo Chavez sites as he lavishes praise on Chomsky’s book of that name.

    Few on this blog have ever denied the zionist role in the Middle East, and particularly concerning the Palestinians, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. But you are not satisfied until all of the ME is wrapped under the heading of Zionist policy. I would not shy away from that if I thought that that was the case.

    Venezuela’s reserves does not make your case. You ignore the coup attempt supported by the US a few years back and the continued propaganda machine that demonizes Chavez (as it does in kind to Iran’s president). US hegemony is not monolithic. It does not “demand” one action for all. It does follow a pattern but only the mentally “blind” would not acknowledge that Iraq is a fiasco not intended by this administration to keep the US military bogged down and broken as it has. It is not even “practical” for the war machine to march into South America. In fact, most of what the US has done in S. America has been through proxies, CIA, and deep rooted oligarchical polity.

    So, please back off this comparison between South American / Venezuela and the Middle East. You seem to want to blame some American “left” and zionist for US hegemony in the ME. Zionism plays its role, but if it didn’t exist the odds are the US would still be in Iraq under this president today. Check US/Britain long history in the region.

    Hegemony is about domination, primarily of resources in a region. To think that US oil interests both for our own needs and the power it provides to control the sources is irrelevant – is, well, missing the point.

  15. Hatuxka said on October 9th, 2007 at 11:45am #

    Murky? A kind of phony “huh?, I’m sorry, I didn’t get your point” tone of dismissiveness is very unsubtly conveyed by Lloyd Rowsey here. The zionist-driven motive of the Iraq war is entering the mainstream because even the gatekeepers can’t keep it from seeping through and pages and pages of sourcing in Mearsheimer and Walts book render any description of the narrative as being “murky” as rancidly outdated. We’re way past that Lloyd. people like you are going to have to answer with more than nonchalant dismissal of the factual. The Lobby operates in the open (it generally has not cost them anything politically), no “murky” conspiracy theories need to be formulated by anyone. With work, it was easy to compile how The Israel Lobby and their political and media syncophants drove the country to war in Iraq.

  16. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 10th, 2007 at 10:08am #

    I regret that the word “murky” pushed your buttons, Hatuxka.

  17. Hatuxka said on October 10th, 2007 at 10:44am #

    Breezy shallowness really does push my buttons, Lloyd.

  18. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 10th, 2007 at 7:37pm #

    That said, Hatuxka. Just promise me you won’t follow me around DV commentville, popping off your buttons.

  19. Mike McNiven said on October 15th, 2007 at 1:33am #

    An original, anti-war anti-imperialist, view from a non-capitalist DV contributor who is fluent in Persian:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat09292007.html

  20. Carlota said on July 17th, 2009 at 1:41am #

    Good afternoon. It’s the soul’s duty to be loyal to its own desires. It must abandon itself to its master passion. Help me! Looking for sites on: Shower curtain clips. I found only this – flamingo shower Curtain. They are also important to the design and general atmosphere of your bathroomtags shower curtain, shower curtainpersonalizing your bathroom with a shower curtain by groshan fabiolawhen it comes to decorating your room interiors, every detail counts. Quilted shower curtains information inspectioncheck home inspection repair resource. With love :-(, Carlota from Thailand.