An Independent Foreign Policy

Michael Meacher on the need for a wholly different approach to foreign policy, opposition to any attack on Iran and the need to reduce dependency on oil.

(From the People's Assembly against the War, London Tuesday 20th March)




Display: Sort:

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#1)

Bad luck with the embedding there, Dan!

And for a candidate who actually has a record of supporting an independent foreign policy, see this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ua3xAOV-MY

Wondered what your thoughts were about the LabourHome poll, Dan? I'm actually surprised at the result given at least two hardened Brownites have told me they voted for Meacher!

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#2)

Owen, the embed issue is a Labourhome quirk, not Dan's mistake.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#3)

Fair enough! Let's see if it works with me. If it doesn't, I hope people will cut and paste the following into their own blogs etc:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Ua3xAOV-MY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Ua3xAOV-MY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#5)

why don't you post it in a new article?

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#6)

Thanks Alex, good suggestion! Sorry, I've not really got the hang of this.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#4)

You can also see John's Trident speech here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqiOmkWTCmw

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#7)

I am stating the obvious. But it needs saying.Michael Meacher voted FOR the war in Iraq and if he and his colleagues had not  done so then there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. I understand he got a cool  reception at this meeting and I'm not surprised.I would have walked  out. Just do us all a favour Michael and stand down.Don't you read the opinion polls here? You are NOT helping the anti-war movement get  a  platform in the leadership election.  

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#8)

I totally accept Michael's statements that backing the war was the biggest mistake of his political life, but it was a mistake others - including (with reference to the leadership election) John McDonnell - didn't make.  And I fear standing for the leadership election is another mistake Michael is making.  I don't think, in the end, Michael standing will have a big influence on the election (although, if we learn that John missed being nominated by less than 5 MPs then his intervention will have been great and destructive indeed).  We're all on the 'same side' - we want to see a candidate stand against Brown, making the arguments for a peace policy rather than a war policy, for investment in public services and trade union rights rather than privatisations and job cuts, for radical action on climate change, etc, etc.  I urge Dan and others to unite behind John McDonnell to maximise our chances of seeing what we all want to see.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#28)

Michael Meacher, like most of the country, believed in 2003 that the war was justified. He made a big mistake and has held his hands up and admitted it was an error. To do this, in my mind, is a sign of honest leadership and responsibility. After the Blair era of incessant spin and counter-spin, we need leaders who are willing to admit when things have gone wrong.

Michael has decades of experience and a superb track record on green issues, which will be the one of the key areas the next general election will be fought on. For me, these two factors place him in a better position than John to offer a credible leftish challenge to Brown.

To make a mistake is common in politics. To admit it is rare.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#9)

"opposition to any attack on Iran"

Clearly this is just another opportunist.

He's got no chance, thank goodness.

"opposition to any attack on Iran"

Clearly he would rather see a nuclear armed iran or he likes the idea of a mushroom cloud over tel aviv.

All he wants to do is position himself with the noise of the happy clappy far left.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#10)


Or perhaps he wants to find political ways to resolve problems that don't involve killing people and sending young men and women off to be killed?

Shame he wasn't thinking along those lines in 2003 when he really could have had an impact, but better late than never.

Nobody should apologise for arguing for peace.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#11)

He's done a gigantic foreign policy u turn.

Do you really anticipate we can convince the islamo facist regime in iran who have told us we they will not under any circumstance change course to change course?

We have to be realistic, this isn't the ussr, these are crazy dangerous people.

They don't fear death, they welcome it and they wannt to destroy us, more importantly to thrm israel.

How much longer before we wait?

They are near enough at the point of no return.

I have a feeling, people like you would say 'just wait a little longer' until it was too late just to avoid taking military action. However philanthropistic the intentions, historically it would have been a great mistake, not to mention today.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#12)


Yes, you're right, I will never support a pre-emptive strike against any country: I see military action only as a defensive measure: sending people to kill and be killed is never a good idea.

I can think of thousands of very negative consequences to military action of the sort being discussed, but little or no positive consequences at all.  It would not remove the future threat you refer to, just create many, many more present threats.

Not renewing Trident would have been more effective than dropping a thousand bombs on Iran, and would have caused a hell of a lot less damage and killed a lot less.  And when I say it would have been more effective, that's not to say it would have caused Iranian disarmament: probably not!

Duncan

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#13)

In theory your first statement is right.

But in that case, we would have not confronted hitler until it was too late, saddam husseins french built nuclear reactor would have provided him with nukes, and numerous acts of genocide would have gone unpunished.

I am very happy for things to be done peacefully with the Iranians, and I am by no means a 'hawk', but there are some of the most serious threats out there since world war 2.

Can you honestly imagine the consequences of a nuclear armed iran? Does that not frighten you?

Would you honestly take military action off the table altogether?

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#14)


The historical parallels are very difficult: with both the Nazi Germany and Iraq examples, the policies of many governments of tacit (in the case of the former) and explicit (the latter) support for those regimes created very different environments in which decisions were made about military solutions than might have existed in other situations.  

I opposed the first Gulf War as well - but I can make a logical argument for defending an ally against an aggressor (and could have made the same logical argument long before the UK decided to militarily engage Hitler) - defence does not necessarily always mean self defence.  But the issue is not when would you countenance war, but how serious are you about maintaining peace.  I would assert again that, re: Iraq in 2003, the aims of many were to set up a pretext for military action rather than to avoid it.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#17)

"does not necessarily always mean self defence.  But the issue is not when would you countenance war, but how serious are you about maintaining peace.  I would assert again that, re: Iraq in 2003, the aims of many were to set up a pretext for military action rather than to avoid it."

You are again right to an extent, but I don't quite understand your larger point about the pretext and reason for war in general.

A threat may not always be in the form of a direct attack, it can be more implicit as was the perceived wmd threat and now the nuclear threat from Iran.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#15)

"Can you honestly imagine the consequences of a nuclear armed iran? Does that not frighten you?"

I think we should all be afraid of a United States armed to the teeth - with a long history of using both "conventional" weapons and WMDs against entire nations (in Vietnam alone, 3 million civilians were slaughtered); for sponsoring terrorism (e.g. the Contras and the Afghan mujahadeen); for destabilising democratic nations (e.g. Chile); and for actively supporting, funding and even installing a host of dictatorships across Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, etc

The United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in combat.

There are regimes which are far more reactionary and undemocratic than Iran in the Middle East - such as Saudi Arabia, for example. They continue to enjoy the active support of the West.

Finally, the last time Iran (or Persia as it was then known) initiated a war was in the late 18th century. The last time the United States initiated a war was in 2003 - causing one of the greatest human catastrophes of our age.

I think maybe a bit of perspective is needed when debating these issues, no?

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#16)

Yes yet more anti american nonsense.

"with a long history of using both "conventional" weapons and WMDs against entire nations (in Vietnam alone, 3 million civilians were slaughtered);"

And what does a decades old conflict have to do with this?

"the Afghan mujahadeen"

Come off it, the mujahadeen were a mutual ally in fighting the communists.

"The United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in combat."

And in doing so saved millions of americans from slaughter in Japan.

"There are regimes which are far more reactionary and undemocratic than Iran in the Middle East "

True to an extent, but the difference is that al qaeda are our mutual enemies, whereas the iranians are directly fighting against us.

"Finally, the last time Iran (or Persia as it was then known) initiated a war was in the late 18th century"

Actually, the iranians class themselves as at war with israel, and are engaged in acts killing our forces in southern iraq and arming terrorists in palestine.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#18)

Good to see another intelligent and nuanced response from our comrades on the right...

"Yes yet more anti american nonsense."

I'm afraid I fail to see how criticisms of the policies pursued by current and previous American administrations is "anti-American nonsense". You are simply using the term "anti-American" to shut down debate - much as, for example, criticisms of certain Israeli policies are dismissed as "anti-Semitic".

"And what does a decades old conflict have to do with this?"

The Vietnam War ended only three decades ago. Thousands of people continue to suffer its effects today - not least victims of Agent Orange. It was highlighted as a particularly brutal example of modern US foreign policy. The point is that, since 1945, the US has systematically supported international terrorism, destabilised democratic states, installed and supported pro-US dictatorships, and waged violent wars with the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands.

"Come off it, the mujahadeen were a mutual ally in fighting the communists."

How interesting. You do realise that CIA-trained elements from the mujahadeen (including bin Laden) went on to carry out 9/11 and other terrorist attacks? That the US is now supposedly waging a life-or-death war against these elements?

Have you ever read 1984?

"'The United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in combat.'

And in doing so saved millions of americans from slaughter in Japan."

As a matter of historical fact, Japan repeatedly attempted to surrender before the first nuclear weapon was used. The attack on Nagasaki, in particular, was used as a show of strength against the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of civilians perished in these horrific attacks.

The US has not only used nukes, but other WMDs (e.g. Agent Orange, depleted uranium) against civilian population - and yet uses alleged possession of WMDs by other regimes as justification for launching wars of aggression.

"'There are regimes which are far more reactionary and undemocratic than Iran in the Middle East '

True to an extent, but the difference is that al qaeda are our mutual enemies, whereas the iranians are directly fighting against us."

True to an extent or just plain true? God knows what you're rambling on about here. How are the Iranians "directly fighting against us" exactly? I'd love to know.

Saudi Arabia is the very heartland of al-Qaeda. Not only were the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia - but al-Qaeda receives the active support of significant sections of the Saudi elite.

"'Finally, the last time Iran (or Persia as it was then known) initiated a war was in the late 18th century'

Actually, the iranians class themselves as at war with israel, and are engaged in acts killing our forces in southern iraq and arming terrorists in palestine"

Iran has never been at war with Israel. Like dozens of other countries across the world, it has refused to recognise the State of Israel. No hard evidence of Iranian support for insurgents has yet been presented - indeed, the Iranian regime has everything to fear from continued instability in its neighbouring countries. On the other hand, there is clear, hard of evidence of British and US military interference in Iraq - the presence of tens of thousands of troops, the use of violence against civilians with the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands, etc

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#19)

"I'm afraid I fail to see how criticisms of the policies pursued by current and previous American administrations is "anti-American nonsense". You are simply using the term "anti-American" to shut down debate - much as, for example, criticisms of certain Israeli policies are dismissed as "anti-Semitic"."

The Americans elected every one of those administrations, so I fail to see how they too cannot be included in your criticism.

However, it is anti American, because it is completely ignorant of the even more outrageous antics of our real enemies.

You choose to ignore that, and instead lambast our greatest friend.

"The Vietnam War ended only three decades ago. Thousands of people continue to suffer its effects today - not least victims of Agent Orange. It was highlighted as a particularly brutal example of modern US foreign policy. The point is that, since 1945, the US has systematically supported international terrorism, destabilised democratic states, installed and supported pro-US dictatorships, and waged violent wars with the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands."

Yes, so I ask again, what exactly does that have to do with today?

Nobody will deny they've made some pretty stupid moves, but it seems you would rather detract from the real threat, by criticising our real friend.

The US helped save the world from the awful communists, helped win world war two, and has liberated millions from two of the most abhorant regimes in the history of humanity.

Whta have the Russians done? The Chinese?

Where is your criticism of the Russian terror in chechnya, the chinese slaughter of hundreds of thousands of pro democracy campaigners over decades of a tyranny near unmatched in its barbarity.

It's a double standard, the far left is happy to pick off easy targets, but you're a one trick pony, full of self contradictions and ironies.

"How interesting. You do realise that CIA-trained elements from the mujahadeen (including bin Laden) went on to carry out 9/11 and other terrorist attacks? That the US is now supposedly waging a life-or-death war against these elements?

Have you ever read 1984?"

A mujahadeen of THOUSANDS. And do pleade direct me to the evidence of CIA crashing planes into buildings lessons.

These people helped liberate Afghanistan from the soviets, and many went on to fight the taliban.

To hold the US responsible for 9/11 is an outrage that simply doesn't line up with the facts.

"As a matter of historical fact, Japan repeatedly attempted to surrender before the first nuclear weapon was used. The attack on Nagasaki, in particular, was used as a show of strength against the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of civilians perished in these horrific attacks."

I have never heard of anything concrete over a japanese surrender.

The japanese started the ball rolling after the soviet invasion of Manchuria. There was to a large extend chaos in the Japanese Hierarchy with rumours floating around of the Emperor's overthrow etc.

Millions of lives were made by taking the tough decision.

"True to an extent or just plain true? God knows what you're rambling on about here. How are the Iranians "directly fighting against us" exactly? I'd love to know."

Clearly you have little or no knowledge of the ball game in the middle east. The Iranians openly arm the most active terror group in the world hezbollah. They also support a number of terrorists in palestine.

Iranian made military hardware has been all over the place in Iraq, in the hands of the terrorists they support there.

That evidence is solid, and photographic.

We're not talking about decades old stuff, we're talking about things made just last year.

"Saudi Arabia is the very heartland of al-Qaeda. Not only were the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia - but al-Qaeda receives the active support of significant sections of the Saudi elite."

Only an idiot would target a country because the nationality of a terrorist that attacked them was from that paticular country.

Al qaeda is the mutual enemy of the Saudi government, that is the royal family. They have helped fight this battle, whereas the Iranian terror regime has done the opposite.

"Iran has never been at war with Israel. Like dozens of other countries across the world, it has refused to recognise the State of Israel"

Iran and Syria are both formally at war with Israel and have been for decades.

Further to this they have both committed acts of war against the israelis in their support of terrorist that have killed innocent israelis.

"On the other hand, there is clear, hard of evidence of British and US military interference in Iraq - the presence of tens of thousands of troops, the use of violence against civilians with the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands, etc"

Yet again you ignore the facts, the forces are under a UN mandate and at the request of the ELECTED iraqi government.

And how dare you slander our troops accusing them of using violence against civilians. What an awful treasonous smear.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#20)

My dearest Loz,

a) A majority of Americans may well have voted for any given administration, but that is not to say that they endorsed all of its foreign policies. Indeed, many such policies (whether that be the CIA overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 or the Chilean government 20 years later) were conducted without the knowledge or consent of the American people. Vietnam is a case in point - by 1968, a majority of the American people opposed the war. However, both Democratic and Republican candidates (Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon) supported the continuation of the war and therefore the American people were deprived of a choice.

The fact is that previous and current American governments have an undeniable record of sponsoring terrorism (such as the Contras and mujahdeen), overthrowing elected governments (such as Allende), installing brutal dictatorships (such as Suharto), supporting countless other dictatorships, supporting atrocities (such as the invasion of East Timor), and waging brutal wars (such as Vietnam).

It is not un-American to point out these facts. Only the worst enemy of the United States would wish it to continue policies which have made that country more detested than any other on the face of the planet. To coin a phrase - another America is possible...

b) Obviously you don't know much about WWII history either. Do you know that around 80% of all combat deaths in WWII occurred on the Eastern front? Do you realise that 27 million Soviets died fighting the Nazis? Do you not realise that the Nazi war machine was beaten by the Soviet people at such a terrible cost? Does Stalingrad - i.e. the turning point of the war - mean anything to you? Do you also realise that one of the main factors behind the Allied invasion of Europe was to prevent the Soviet conquest of the entire European continent, given the USSR had already effectively defeated Nazi Germany? If the Nazis hadn't invaded the USSR - and been beaten - we would all now be languishing under Nazi dictatorship.

As for the Chinese - again, obviously you don't know much about the war of liberation they fought against Japan, and the millions who perished as a result.

I have always condemned Putin's genocidal war against Chechnya - a war orchestrated by the Russian regime in order to install the said tyrant. In my view, the claims of Berezovsky and indeed Litivenko - that the FSB was behind the apartment bombings of 1999 and the rebel invasion of Dagestan in order to provide a justification for launching the war - are very convincing.  And as for the Chinese dictatorship - frankly I wouldn't be devastated if many of them were swinging from lampposts, to be brutally honest.

c) Osama bin Laden and his allies were trained and funded by the CIA. That is simply a fact. I have never suggested that the CIA had any responsibility for 9/11 - indeed I have refuted the absurd arguments of those who have made such claims, which service to discredit the antiwar movement. Afghanistan in the 1980s represented the birth of the modern Islamic terrorist movement - and those monsters created by the CIA later turned on their former paymasters. Again, this is simply a matter of historical fact and there's no debate to be had.

d) For more on the bombing of Japan, I suggest you read 'Atomic Diplomacy' by Gar Alperovitz.

e) The US funds and arms the Israeli military, which (to be quite frank) is responsible for far more destruction and death than Hezbollah. The recent abortive Israeli invasion of Lebanon is a case in point.

f) The Saudi elite is extremely complex and factionalised. Sections of it have been actively funding al-Qaeda for years. Like the US, they funded the Afghan mujahadeen and continued to fund such elements after the defeat of Soviet forces.

I would also argue that the House of Saud is one of the most reactionary, repressive and undemocratic regimes on the face of the planet. It also enjoys the active support of the West. I also note that you fail to condemn it - and instead laud this vile little dictatorship as an ally.

g) Iran is not at war with Israel and never has been. During the major Arab-Israeli wars (1967 and 1973), Iran was ruled by the pro-Western dictatorship of the Shah and did not participate in hostilities. There is no evidence of any Iranian plan to attack Israel; there is evidence that Israel intends to bomb Iran.

h) According to repeated opinion polls, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people oppose the presence of occupying troops and demand their withdrawal. As for my "treasonous smear" (sorry, who are you? McCarthy) - I refer you to last year's peer-reviewed Lancet report which revealed that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#21)

"a) A majority of Americans may well have voted for any given administration, but that is not to say that they endorsed all of its foreign policies. Indeed, many such policies (whether that be the CIA overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 or the Chilean government 20 years later) were conducted without the knowledge or consent of the American people. Vietnam is a case in point - by 1968, a majority of the American people opposed the war. However, both Democratic and Republican candidates (Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon) supported the continuation of the war and therefore the American people were deprived of a choice."

The Americans had little or no choice at that time. They were dragged in and there was no opportunity for escape. However, again I raise the point, the Americans with knowledge of the historical precdence have continued to elect trigger happy presidents. Even Jimmy Carter did his fair share of covert espionage.

Nobody is defending some of the stupid mistakes they have made, although some of the left wingers in S.America were pretty nuts, however in perspective the Americans have done so many great things for this world as opposed to the leftists in China and Russia who have done untold damage and continue to do so to this day.

"mujahdeen"

The mujahdeen were not terrorists. The communists were in that equation.

"such as Allende"

Sadly Mr Allende was receiving shipments of arms from eastern european communists.

"It is not un-American to point out these facts"

I'm afraid your gross inbalance and smears of successive American administrations elected by the Americans, of both parties is a smear of them all.

"b) Obviously you don't know much about WWII history either. Do you know that around 80% of all combat deaths in WWII occurred on the Eastern front? Do you realise that 27 million Soviets died fighting the Nazis? Do you not realise that the Nazi war machine was beaten by the Soviet people at such a terrible cost? Does Stalingrad - i.e. the turning point of the war - mean anything to you? Do you also realise that one of the main factors behind the Allied invasion of Europe was to prevent the Soviet conquest of the entire European continent, given the USSR had already effectively defeated Nazi Germany? If the Nazis hadn't invaded the USSR - and been beaten - we would all now be languishing under Nazi dictatorship."

Yeah thanks for telling me what I already know, but what exactly did I say to contradict any of that????????

What exactly is your point?

That we should be grateful for the USSR throwing out the nazis only after being double crossed by hitler?......

"As for the Chinese - again, obviously you don't know much about the war of liberation they fought against Japan, and the millions who perished as a result."

And what exactly does a decades old war have to do with this?

"c) Osama bin Laden and his allies were trained and funded by the CIA. That is simply a fact. I have never suggested that the CIA had any responsibility for 9/11 - indeed I have refuted the absurd arguments of those who have made such claims, which service to discredit the antiwar movement. Afghanistan in the 1980s represented the birth of the modern Islamic terrorist movement - and those monsters created by the CIA later turned on their former paymasters. Again, this is simply a matter of historical fact and there's no debate to be had."

And your point again is what?

You said they armed terrorists, that is simply bollocks.

The US armed forces fighting the communists, they were not a collective terrorists group, they were a fragmented section of Afghan society fighting a war to expel the communist invaders.

You are right, there is no debate to be had, the CIA was not training them to fly planes into buildings, thus blame lies with Bin Laden and  his terrorists, nobody else.

"e) The US funds and arms the Israeli military, which (to be quite frank) is responsible for far more destruction and death than Hezbollah. The recent abortive Israeli invasion of Lebanon is a case in point."

The israelis won, the rocket attacks into israel (which no doubt you were silent about) happened to the tune of 100s a month.

Israel at the time was completely out of Lebanon. Only the quite absurd UN mission (yet another example of UN failure) completely failed to deter such terrorist activities.

Hezbollah is a terrorist group, israel is a democracy, and as such it has every right to defend itself by destroying the terrorists.

"f) The Saudi elite is extremely complex and factionalised. Sections of it have been actively funding al-Qaeda for years. Like the US, they funded the Afghan mujahadeen and continued to fund such elements after the defeat of Soviet forces."

Yes, but the saudis are governed by the royal family which is most certainly fighting against al qaeda.

Again, I'm not defending the regime, they're bastards, but at very least they're on side when it comes to fighting the terrorists.

"g) Iran is not at war with Israel and never has been. During the major Arab-Israeli wars (1967 and 1973), Iran was ruled by the pro-Western dictatorship of the Shah and did not participate in hostilities. There is no evidence of any Iranian plan to attack Israel; there is evidence that Israel intends to bomb Iran."

I'm afraid you are being completely ignorant of the modern iranian dictatorship which is formally at war with israel.

Irans president has spoken of wiping israel off the map in a 'great storm', he has denied the holocaust and his regime funds openly any and all groups fighting to destory the israeli state.

"h) According to repeated opinion polls, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people oppose the presence of occupying troops and demand their withdrawal. As for my "treasonous smear" (sorry, who are you? McCarthy) - I refer you to last year's peer-reviewed Lancet report which revealed that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion of Iraq. "

Yes the quite absurdly flawed report, condemned by almost every respectable statistician.

Maybe you should trust the iraqi electorate who risked their lives in millions to vote for a government that has near enough begged the coalition to stay.

And a good 99.9 of those killed are killed by islamo facist terrorists.

Your smear was quite disgraceful, a quite awful attack on our troops whonare doing a fantastic job.

A recent poll showed the iraqis are optomistic for the future, why should we let that country be overun by the people killing the iraqi people are out troops?

Surrender now, will strengthen our enemies which is not the right course of action.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#22)


With respect, Loz, that is one of the most astonishing pieces I've ever read: do you actually believe this stuff?

This distinction between democracies and 'the terrorists' (as if 'the terrorists' are some united world conspiracy, and a parliamentary majority makes all mass murder moral) is alarming, to say the least.  The Saudi regime carries out public beheadigs, but at least they're 'on side' against 'the terrorists'?  I guess you'd say the same of the regime boiling people alive in Uzbekistan?  How can people simultaneously expect people to believe that Saddam and the Taliban were removed because of their abhorrent treatment of their own people, while admitting the naked double standards at work in supporting, covering, funding and arming some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet.  Your reference to the US-sponsored coup against Allende is particularly revealing: your suggestion is that you approved of this; a move that brought in the fascist Pinochet and saw so many people tortured, killed and disappeared!  How can anyone take your protestations about the vile regimes of Iran or anywhere else seriously when you are so relaxed about those 'bastards' who are 'on side'.

You are very good at twisting people's words (suggesting that any references to Bin Laden's past as a US proxy is somehow claiming that the US government colluded in 9/11; or that condemning the number of civilians killed - and targeted - in Iraq, is a treasonous slur on British troops, rather than a righteous attack on the leaders who sent them there) but I fear that your suggestion that anybody else in this debate lacks balance reveals the paucity of your argument.  You pretend your opponent has made arguments that he has not; you rhetorically set up a fundamental global conflict between 'democracies' (and their allies, however undemocratic) and 'the terrorists' and selectively decide who resides in which camp (so Saddam was on the side of 'the terrorists' despite his Bush-like zealous slaughter of 'Islamists', and Uzbekistan is on the side 'the democracies' despite its leader boiling its opponents alive).  It is the same logic that puts the democratically-elected Allende on the side of totalitarianism, and the fascist dictator Pinochet on the side of the pluralists: thanks very much Mrs. Thatcher!

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#23)

"With respect, Loz, that is one of the most astonishing pieces I've ever read: do you actually believe this stuff?"

Clearly there is no respect in your tone, and I would simply ask in return do you believe your slurs unto our military men and women?

And for the record, yesm I do believe it.

"This distinction between democracies and 'the terrorists' (as if 'the terrorists' are some united world conspiracy, and a parliamentary majority makes all mass murder moral) is alarming, to say the least."

What exactly does that mean?

"The Saudi regime carries out public beheadigs, but at least they're 'on side' against 'the terrorists'?  I guess you'd say the same of the regime boiling people alive in Uzbekistan?"

You talk in your post of me twisting words, however you have a great deal of hypocrisy in your post. I have repeatedly criticised very clearly the sort of regimes we cooperate with on the war on terror.

The far left always likes to talk about cooperation, and that is exactly what we are doing. That in no way means we endorse the barbarity of these despicable regimes, it means being realistic.

To not support two regimes in pakistan and saudi arabia that are full of perhaps the most extremist populations in the middle east would be a disaster. We need to keep them on side at all costs. That is the harsh reality of things.

"How can people simultaneously expect people to believe that Saddam and the Taliban were removed because of their abhorrent treatment of their own people, while admitting the naked double standards at work in supporting, covering, funding and arming some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet."

People will not be expected to believe that because that is not the main reason they were removed.

It is now the only good reason to remove the hussein regime for obvious reasons.

"Your reference to the US-sponsored coup against Allende is particularly revealing: your suggestion is that you approved of this; a move that brought in the fascist Pinochet and saw so many people tortured, killed and disappeared!  How can anyone take your protestations about the vile regimes of Iran or anywhere else seriously when you are so relaxed about those 'bastards' who are 'on side'."

I am certainly not justifying the coup, and once again you have ignored my numerous criticism of US foreign policy with regard South America.

However, with regards Iran, I have not made one single comment that should lead you to believe my opinion of the situation is based upon my opposition to their human rights shambles. My line is quite simple, they are a threat and they must be confronted. Also making this clear should be the fact I have not spoken of invasion but of tactical strikes.

"You are very good at twisting people's words (suggesting that any references to Bin Laden's past as a US proxy is somehow claiming that the US government colluded in 9/11"

Why exactly did you bring up the point then?

The US didn't train terrorists, ssadly a few of the thousands they did to fight the communists, did go on to become terrorists

The point is, the US was not training them to hate america or to fly planes, so how can they possibly be at fault which was the implication of your reference that falsely labeled the mujahadeen as terrorists.

"or that condemning the number of civilians killed - and targeted - in Iraq, is a treasonous slur on British troops, rather than a righteous attack on the leaders who sent them there)"

I'm afraid you actually referenced the trops as having been 'violent' and killing civilians. Nobody has instructed anyone on our side to target civilian populations and the extreme minority that have done so have in many cases been bought to justice for their crimes.

It is however an extreme minority, and really it has no place in a debate about the actions of out troops which has been overall fantastic.

It is therefore quite a smear to highlight the actions of an extreme minority and some how blame it on the leaders that made the decision to go to war.  

"ou rhetorically set up a fundamental global conflict between 'democracies' (and their allies, however undemocratic) and 'the terrorists"

Do you deny the fact there are various groups of terrorists each trying in some way to defeat our way of life and to launch attacks on us and our allies in some cases funded by regimes that also actively oppose us?

It's a war, a war on terror, and we must fight it, because if we don't, it will come back to haunt us.

"so Saddam was on the side of 'the terrorists' despite his Bush-like zealous slaughter of 'Islamists'"

Saddams regime helped inflame middle eastern terrorists by his financing of palestinian terror, not to mention the fact that one of the most vicious terrorists in history, zarqawi just happened to be in iraq over a year before the war.

Also ignoring his regimes funding of the terrorists group in his own nation, ansar al islam.

"Uzbekistan is on the side 'the democracies' despite its leader boiling its opponents alive"

That guy is dead now, but yes the regime is despotic, however that may change soon enough, I believe they are to kick the americans out some time in the next few years.

"It is the same logic that puts the democratically-elected Allende on the side of totalitarianism, and the fascist dictator Pinochet on the side of the pluralists: thanks very much Mrs. Thatcher!"

I favour none of those tyrants. I'll leave you to decide to which I refer to.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#24)

This is becoming increasingly hard to read. I would just say that it is beyond belief that we have someone trying to articulate (however poorly) such shockingly reactionary politics on a supposedly leftwing forum.

a) You have made an outrageously racist comment in referring to the Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as being "full of perhaps the most extremist populations in the Middle East". In my view, you should be suspended from this forum for making this blatantly racist statement unless you apologise and retract it. Furthermore, this comment shows your total lack of commitment to democracy - i.e. you are supporting these horrifyingly brutal dictatorships because you fear what would happen if their people actually had a say in running their own lives.

b) The US, Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani ISI funnelled funds and arms to - and provided training for - the most extreme fundamentalist elements fighting in the "jihad" against the Soviet occupation. They were fully aware of who they were dealing with. The Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement was born in Afghanistan - and following the war, dispersed around the globe with dire consequences.

c) Repeated aerial bombings of civilian areas can have no other consequence than the deaths of thousands of civilians. Such bombings have been carried out repeatedly - with the same consequences each time. It's simply unacceptable to say that there is no intention to kill civilians - it is known that such actions will kill civilians, and the results are the same. 650,000 have been slaughtered according to a peer-reviewed Lancet report - 250,000 of which were directly killed by occupation actions. And no, I am not going to blame individual soldiers - it's the fault of political leaders who sent them there. My view is that they should be taken out of harm's way - i.e home.

d) The so-called "war on terrorism" has caused a dramatic increase in terrorist actions; it has radicalised millions of Muslims across the world; it has caused Britain to become a leading target for terrorism; and it has ensured that Iraq is now crawling with tens of thousands of terrorists. Furthermore, Zarqawi had no connection with the Ba'athist dictatorship (which he militantly opposed as a secular regime) - he was in northern Iraq prior to the war - i.e. the area out of Saddam's control. I suggest you read Loretta Napeoloni's book on the subject. In fact, sod that, I suggest you read full stop.

To be honest, there's no much point debating with you. You're a bigot, you're embarrassingly ill-informed, and you're cringe-makingly immature. This will be the last time I attempt "debate" with you.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#25)

"a) You have made an outrageously racist comment in referring to the Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as being "full of perhaps the most extremist populations in the Middle East". In my view, you should be suspended from this forum for making this blatantly racist statement unless you apologise and retract it.
So go and tell on me and see what happens. I'm not too fussed.

Sadly, it is beyond dispute that the two nations contain two of the largest extermist population in the middle east. Part of the reason the countries are governed by barbaric regimes, however awful they are.

"Furthermore, this comment shows your total lack of commitment to democracy - i.e. you are supporting these horrifyingly brutal dictatorships because you fear what would happen if their people actually had a say in running their own lives."

What an absolute misrepresentation. I made clear my opposition to the regimes, I made the correct point that we need to cooperate with them on the WOT.

So try and reflect what I say accurately instead of smearing.

"b) The US, Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani ISI funnelled funds and arms to - and provided training for - the most extreme fundamentalist elements fighting in the "jihad" against the Soviet occupation. They were fully aware of who they were dealing with. The Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement was born in Afghanistan - and following the war, dispersed around the globe with dire consequences."

That is completely false. Large sections of the mujahadeen went on to oppose the taliban, many went on to fight with the northern alliance.

The fact that some of them went on to become terrorists is absolutely not the fault of the United states. The communists were defeated because of the US backed liberation army.

"c) Repeated aerial bombings of civilian areas can have no other consequence than the deaths of thousands of civilians. Such bombings have been carried out repeatedly - with the same consequences each time. It's simply unacceptable to say that there is no intention to kill civilians - it is known that such actions will kill civilians, and the results are the same."

That is warfare, and the plans of the coalition have always been to minimise civilian casualties. A war sadly is never fought without innocent victims. However the terrorists are the ones that are causing these wars, islamo facists are the enemy of not only us, but the innocent victims they target in iraq.

And once more it doesn't change the fact that innocent people were not TARGETTED.

You do know what that means right?????

" The so-called "war on terrorism" has caused a dramatic increase in terrorist actions; it has radicalised millions of Muslims across the world"

Once again, a far leftie smearing the islamic world, suggesting they are in such a mind set that their natural reaction is one that involves terrorism and killing innocent people.

Sadly, it you that has shown yourself to be a bigot.

"Furthermore, Zarqawi had no connection with the Ba'athist dictatorship (which he militantly opposed as a secular regime) - he was in northern Iraq prior to the war - i.e. the area out of Saddam's control"

Again, you are completely wrong. Zarqawi is known to have ben in hospital in the baghdad area after suffering injuries fighting the US in Afghanistan.

So maybe on a whole host of issues you can get your facts right next time, instead of smearing others. You are a cretin and charlatan of the highest order.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#26)

Well, sorry if you don't appreciate my tone.

a) When did Islam Karimov die? (Genuine question - I thought he was still President of Uzbekistan, but I do occasionally miss these things)

b) I didn't bring up the issue of the training of mujahadeen in Afghanistan

c) Your conclusion that they were not terrorists because they were fighting communists suggests that, for you, the morality of all acts are determined by imperialist interests (i.e. the acts of attacking civilians either side of the Lebanon border is terrorism or not solely based on who our allies are).  Suicide bombings in Kabul when there was a government backed by a communist occupation were examples of people 'co-operating with us' whereas now it is terrorism.  The fact is that it was often the same people - ordinary Afghans - who were killed.  When the Soviets were pushed out of Afghanistan 'collaborators' were killed in huge numbers - 'collaborators' were people who carried on teaching children, looking after the sick, being civil servants, etc.  From the perspective of those who were later to become Al Qaeda and to welcome the Taliban (not to mention many of those who decided instead to form the Northern Alliance and encouraged the 2001 invasion) 'collaborators' with a western imperialist occupying force and its puppet government are morally equivalent to those with a communist one.  You have a terrifyingly stark view of the world in which its all a simple case of our interests - at any price - against an unseen, organised enemy.

d) The warmongers were keen to point out the presence of a senior Al Qaeda figure in Baghdad in 2002.  They chose not to mention that - disgracefully, actually - the figure was arrested by the regime and, mysteriously, died in custody.  The Ansar-al-Islam movement were bitter opponents of Saddam, based in the autonomous Kurdish region of Northern Iraq.

Saddam was a bloody dictator; he was not an ally of Al Qaeda.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#27)

"a) When did Islam Karimov die? (Genuine question - I thought he was still President of Uzbekistan, but I do occasionally miss these things)"

My mistake, I've checked the detail, It was the president for life of turkmenistan Saparmurat Niyazov who died late last year.

On the wiki topic I viewed to get that info, I was refered to thios interesting article:

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/election/uzbekistan/bbu260100.htm

"US slams Uzbek election as unfree, unfair and laughable"

"c) Your conclusion that they were not terrorists because they were fighting communists suggests that, for you, the morality of all acts are determined by imperialist interests (i.e. the acts of attacking civilians either side of the Lebanon border is terrorism or not solely based on who our allies are).  Suicide bombings in Kabul when there was a government backed by a communist occupation were examples of people 'co-operating with us' whereas now it is terrorism.  The fact is that it was often the same people - ordinary Afghans - who were killed.  When the Soviets were pushed out of Afghanistan 'collaborators' were killed in huge numbers - 'collaborators' were people who carried on teaching children, looking after the sick, being civil servants, etc.  From the perspective of those who were later to become Al Qaeda and to welcome the Taliban (not to mention many of those who decided instead to form the Northern Alliance and encouraged the 2001 invasion) 'collaborators' with a western imperialist occupying force and its puppet government are morally equivalent to those with a communist one.  You have a terrifyingly stark view of the world in which its all a simple case of our interests - at any price - against an unseen, organised enemy."

That simply isn't accurate. The mujahadeen was not as well organised and centrally pointed as you indicated. It was formed of dozens of groups, yes some that did some despicable things. However, after the war, the 'group' largely splinted and turned on each other, which is partly the reason the Taliban took power.

Some of these groups, the more extreme groups were armed and trained by the iranians, the saudis and pakistan, which is why you did see more extreme breakaways who did some of the things you referenced.

You once again misrepresent my position.

I do not condone any terrorism of targetting of innocent people, I do not condone any barbaric regime from Fidel Castro to the saudis. My point is, when it comes to the war on terror, it is in our mutual interest to work with them and to defeat a mutual threat, the islamic extremists.

To confront one of your further points:

"the acts of attacking civilians either side of the Lebanon border is terrorism or not solely based on who our allies are"

The Israelis did some very stuypid things last year, but overall, the intent was correct, their nation was under constant bombardment from iranian sponsored terrorists. They simply needed to act to confront this direct threat once and for all.

"d) The warmongers were keen to point out the presence of a senior Al Qaeda figure in Baghdad in 2002.  They chose not to mention that - disgracefully, actually - the figure was arrested by the regime and, mysteriously, died in custody."

I have not heard of this, could you provide me a link to read up on it.

"The Ansar-al-Islam movement were bitter opponents of Saddam, based in the autonomous Kurdish region of Northern Iraq."

Not so, they were a Sunni group that are now actively fighting the coalition.

Much of their munitions came from the Saddam regime and financial links are known to have existed between them and saddams intelligence agencies.

The links however murky were there.

I don't allege any major relations between saddam and al qaeda, but I don't need to, saddams links to terrorism were already there.

Re: An Independent Foreign Policy (#29)

手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载 免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声 网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表 手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载 免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声 网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表