Monday, January 16, 2006

On Iran's nukes and analogies

Now that the Sunday morning talks shows have come and gone and the Sunday papers are read and thrown in for recycling, the talking heads have gotten everybody and their Aunt Bessie hot and bothered over the Iranian nuclear program. Perhaps the most incendiary talking head is our friendly neighborhood imperialist Niall Ferguson in the Sunday Telegraph:
The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented

. . .

Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. . . . [military] strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006 . . . But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. . . .

So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. . . . As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. . . .

The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. . . .
Obviously, Ferguson likes analogies. So let's play his game. Why is Munich 1938 the proper analogy instead of, say, China 1964?

In 1964 China was considered just as radical and unstable and irrational as Iran is today. In fact, probably more so. The Great Leap Forward had just ended, which consumed 25-60 million lives. The split with the USSR had come a few years previously as well because Khrushchev thought Stalin wasn't all that and a bag of chips, with Mao accusing the Soviets of "counter-revolution". China condemned Khrushchev's actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis as "capitulationism" and didn't give a damn that Khrushchev thought Mao's advice would have led to nuclear war. China had also just finished up a brief border war of its own with India in 1962 and supported communist rebels throughout Southeast Asia including Vietnam where the US was digging in for a war of its own.

And yet when the US had the chance to bomb Chinese nuclear facilities to forestall a nuclear China in 1964, it refused.
The bases for direct action against Chinese Communist nuclear facilities were explored in April 1964 in a paper by Robert Johnson of the Department of State Policy Planning Council, which paper it was apparently decided should form the basis for any subsequent consideration of the subject. . . .

The major conclusion of the paper is to the following effect:
"It is evident . . . that the significance of a [Chicom nuclear] capability is not such as to justify the undertaking of actions which would involve great political costs or high military risks."
This conclusion appears to be based on the observations summarized above regarding technical feasibility, impermanence of effect, and political difficulty, and, very importantly, on arguments to the effect that the near and medium term consequences in Asia of a Chinese nuclear capability will be small, and that direct threat to the US will be very small.
If we could live with a nuclear China which was seen as a very grave threat to world peace and security in the early 1960s, then why can we not do the same with a potential nuclear Iran? Let's be clear: I neither relish nor welcome a nuclear Iran. However, the risks of bombing the country strongly exceed the potential benefits in my book.

So tell me why this is Munich 1938 and not China 1964?


At 10:50 AM, Blogger Gen. Glut said...

Sorry to make you all go through a word verification process now, but the spammers were killing me.

At 11:07 AM, Blogger Epimethee said...

well ... 1 Iranians are more antisemitic than chinese...

2 Iranians are less numerous and less of a threat (even with oil), the USA love to bully the feeble ones, they hate to lose men at war.

3 anyway the USA are not going to invade Iran, besides Iran has every right to get a nuclear weapon, it can withdraw any time of the non proliferation treaty, Iran has not violated yet any treaty while Israel has been constantly in violation of UNO's decisions since 1966.

4 The real comparison is not China 1964, but Israel ???...
It is self evident that all countries in the middle east not under the umbrella of the USA will get the nuclear bomb : because Israel has it. And it is self evident that japan, korea and taiwan will seek that bomb anytime they feel the US umbrella is not powerful enough

At 1:07 PM, Anonymous Jim said...

it seems that assured nuclear anihilation of iran would be a very strong deterent to their use of a nuclear weapon were they to obtain one.

this policy worked very well against russia (and china for that matter) in the cold war, without any actual war.

n.korea uses a similar strategy against seoul that is quite effective at preventing them from being attacked.

the anti-semitism analogy seems moot here... they don't really have any jews living in their country to perpetuate genocide a-la the nazis anyhow.... so i fail to see the connection

At 1:41 AM, Blogger Kevin said...

I was only 11 when China got the bomb, but my memory of those days was that the Sino-Soviet split was so recent and not really believed in yet. Many thought it was a "commie trick".
So the biggest factor was the fear that if we attacked China, that would result in WW3.
There were lots of things the country put up with because even a chance of WW3 was worse.
Actually, I think the situation is reversed, at least in how much of America is likely to see it.
Bombing Iran could piss a lot of countries off, but is not likely to result in an H-bomb attack. On the other hand, once the Iranians have nuclear weapons, even if they can't reach us with them, they could reach Israel pretty easily.
And the world shortage of oil increases the sense of imminent peril.

A question: It seems widely agreed that it is technically not possible to take out the Iranian nuclear program from the air and invading Iran would be extremely difficult (although I wonder if we may not be underestimating the capacity of the US military against an actual military with plenty of conventional targets to strike) But how difficult would it be to drop in a large enough force to sieze just a few critical installations long enough to blow them up from the inside, then leave? With perhaps whatever air strikes were needed to prevent the Iranians from moving their forces toward those chosen installations.
I am not advocating this. I am trying to understand what actual alternatives exist (or don't).
The idea of the current Iranian regime with the bomb scares me, but at the current moment I would have to line up with those who say that even if military action is a good idea, Team Bush would find some way to mess it up big time.
(Although, don't they actually have a quite good record on the military stuff itself? Their problems start the moment the conventional military engagement ends.

At 12:37 PM, Anonymous Joshua said...

"they don't really have any jews living in their country to perpetuate genocide a-la the nazis anyhow"

1) The vast majority of Jews murdered in the Holocaust did not live in Germany (between 1933 and 1939 many Jews were able to leave Germany, and there were, at most only 500,000 Jews to start with.

2) Nuking Israel would be an excellent method of committing genocide. Iran could achieve this either by a direct assault or by arming groups such as Hizbullah.

At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Barry said...

"Nuking Israel would be an excellent method of committing genocide. Iran could achieve this either by a direct assault or by arming groups such as Hizbullah. "

This is a flat-out lie. Nuking Israel would lead to what's euphemistically called 'massive retaliation', meaning about 100 nuclear detonations on Iranian cities and military installations. Therefore, nuking Israel is very poor method of commiting genocide, unless the political leadership is suicidal. And given that the Iran-Iraw war gave any suicidal Iranians an eight-year opportunity to die gloriously, we can rule out any suicidal impulses on the part of the Iranian leadership.

At 1:01 PM, Anonymous Joshua said...

"In 1964 China was considered just as radical and unstable and irrational as Iran is today."

Only in your mind. The current president of Iran not only believes the world is coming to an end but also considers it is his bounden duty to prepare for that eventuality. If anything, he is far more dangerous than the Nazis.

The Holocaust could not have occurred without the almost complete and willing collaboration of occupied Europe, and, possibly more importantly, the complete insoucience of the Allies, who fought a war in spite of and not because of the Jews. I suspect that those who wish to appease Iran right now are not very different to that insouciant generation in the 1930s, who said that it wasn't worth going to war because, after all, Hitler was only after the Jews, and who gave a damn about them? As Churchill once put it: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

For those who suggest that Israel should not possess nuclear weapons, here is my answer. Israel has not threatened to use its nuclear weapons against anyone. Pakistan and India threatened to start a nuclear war only a few years ago. The United States, with the collaboration of the UK, is the only country who has actually used nuclear weapons. Beyond that, the US has committed untold barbarities in many nations around the world, including the bombing of Dresden (with Britain), the rape of Vietnam, and engaged in an illegal war in Iraq (again with Britain), in which, according to one authoritative source, over 100,000 civilians have died. France has committed genocide at least twice in Africa and directly collaborated in the murder of many thousands of French Jews. China has one of the worse human rights records on the planet and is currently engaged in an illegal occupation of Tibet. Russia, like China, possesses an appalling human rights record, has committed genocide in Chechenya, is run by an ex-KGB thug, and is busy arming some of the most unsavoury regimes in the world to the teeth. Compared to this bunch, Israel is an absolute paragon of virtue.

At 1:06 PM, Anonymous Joshua said...

"Therefore, nuking Israel is very poor method of commiting genocide, unless the political leadership is suicidal."

And that is exactly what the leadership appears to be. Indeed, a former Iranian leader suggested that it would be possible to annihilate Israel with just a couple of weapons whereas the vast Muslim world would easily survive even a massive Israeli counterstrike.

I am certainly no liar, but you are, without question, ill-educated and naive.

At 2:34 PM, Blogger ilsm2 said...

Accounts of leadership irrationality come from both sides. There are some who think Dubya should not have access to US nuclear forces.

Indeed, Mao was reputed to have saaid a nuke exchange would solve some of the over population issues in the PRC.

The tales did not occur nor did it cause a preemption.

If one worries about Iran, how about Pakistan? The only balance there is India, and how fragile are both those regimes?

Take away the fear of Armeggedon and what Iran nukes says is the US has to calculate how far it can rattle the saber before the Irani regime say come on in the "tar baby" here is much hotter than in Iraq.

Nukes cause a 450 billion dollar a year military to think twice about taking a counry on whose GDP is a small fraction of our defense budget.

Makes the investment/expenditure decision on our side much hairier.

At 9:44 PM, Anonymous dryfly said...

Get used to it. Within 20-30 years there will be 50 members of the nuclear club... Iran will be one of many.

Any country with a source of high grade plutonium and/or U238 and an average metal working capability will be able to assemble bombs quite quickly.

And with the spread of 'peaceful nukes' there will be plenty of plutonium & uranium 238 out there to divert even if the countries can't easily process it themselves. They might as well trade the crap on the LME.

And it isn't like you need a thousand nukes to deter an aggressor... just the assurance that a few will make it through in retaliation.

Its the new paradigm - get used to it.

At 6:28 AM, Blogger ilsm2 said...

Nukes kept the Red Army out of Germany.

40,000 tanks and 2 million soldiers kept at bay.

At 4:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wayel, General, ah don't seez no point to all this here analogin' 'bout that thar Munchen of 19 and 38 er that thar Cathay of 19 and 64.

First, Nazi Germany didn't have no ohl and gas that they was uh fixin' tuh start uh ohl bourse with 3 months after Munchen, at least that ah knows about. In fact, them Nazi yayhoos was just uh positionin' tuh grab them some of that black goo down Ploesti way. And only then they was uh thinkin' 'bout marchin' on from the Balkans a hop, skip and a jump into the Caspian and Turkish fields. And only then was they uh fixin' tuh light into EYEran and EYEraq. Munich, as ah heard it tolt tuh me, was just the Anglo-Amurrrican oil oligopoly's way of offerin' to bribe them Nazis outta makin' them grabs too sudden like. Ewe know. Ol' Neville was probably just tolt to buy Winnie and Franklin and the Anglo-Amurrrican ohl oligopoly some time to get the war machine cranked up. Ya follow? Like the Grand Coulee dam and its electricity for all of the bauxite plants up yonder in the Pacific Northwest that had to be laid down a'fore they could commence tuh makin' B-17s and such in large numbers. Ya follow me? A land war in Europe over ohl were purt near inevitable in 19 and 38, cuz the English navy couldn't keep Germany from uh marchin' overland into the middle east eventually. (fer what its worth, they had to have a land war in 19 and 14 to stop the Germans from makin' the same march). but inevitable though a land war was in 19 and 38, exactly when that land war would start warn't set in no stone, no sirreee. Munchen was just buyin' time. It warn't no mistake at all. They knew full well what they wuz uh doin'. There was goin' tuh be uh land war in Europe sooner er later cuz, like ah said, Germany (and Russia) had the whammy on land access to all the ohl and gas in the Balkans, the Caspian, the EYEraq and the EYEran. The Admiralty and Winnie just couldn't figure out how to sail ships on sand to protect all that ohl they done grabbed after WW ONE.

Second, analoguein' about Cathay in 19 and 64 don't make no sense neither. Cathay didn't have no big ohl and gas fields that they was going to start a dang non dollar denominated ohl bourse with. They weren't in no position to start dumpin' big quantities of ohl and gas on the world markets. Chuuuute fire, General, they was just a bunch uh wool and camel hair coated commies tryin' tuh get ever body wearing EWEniforms and ridin' bikes and workin' in danged communes. They wasn' exactly uh imminent threat to the Federal Reserve central bankin' heeeegemony the way an Iranian ohl bourse denominated in euros could be into today's electronically footloose financial world.

No, ah don't blieve any uh this analoguein' is releeevant.

All that matters in the here and now with EYEran is this: they gots alotta danged ohl--basically the eastern half of the ohl fields that span the southern part of EYEraq and EYEran. Put another way, both groups is pumpin' ohl outta the same reserves and that has always been an edgy situation. Further, they gots 25% of the world's natural gas. yep. an ah ain't talkin' 'bout stomach gas here. ah'm talkin' 'bout the kinda stuff ya liquify and tranship through uh proprietary system of tankers and pipelines and liquification plants and regassification plants and all kinda danged infrastructure that thuh Anglo-Amurrrican ohl oligopoly done got a heap uh sunk costs in startin' up. And uh oligopoly cain't run a proprietary LNG system if'n 25 danged percent uh the world's natural gas supply belongs tuh folks what don't wanna play ball, now can it? And EWE add in the fact that these folks what don't wanna play ball is uh settin' up uh ohl bourse denominated in euros that will open in a danged month and a half, and, wayel, general, you can bet yer bottom petro dollar that the boyz in the back room has decided that the EYEranians cain't start no ohl bourse if'n they ain't got no ohl. its really that simple...fer once.

and the low cost way to make sure thuh EYEranians ain't got no ohl tuh bourse ain't to invade now; that would be plumb dumb. chuuuute, general, they bombed EYEraq fer purt near ten years before they marched in there and set about balkanizin' the caliphate there by convulsin' the country into civil war and the eventually three or four theocracies that will emerge there over the next ten years. no, they got tuh spend a good ten years softenin' up the EYEran a'fore they march in there. but in the short term, say in the next few months, all they gotta do is start uh aerial bombardment of thuh Bushewehr region under a rationale that they is deeestroyin' nookular capability. Ah reads in the papers that Bushewehr is where the southern ohl fields be and that's also where their refineries and their ocean access is located. So, all somebody's gotta do is go in there and bomb the beediddlely out of it with Depleted Uranium weapons and turn the danged place into an environmentally uninhabitable ghost town. And if some of them neocon vulcans be as mean as some folks say they is, wayel, general, then all they gots tuh do is drop a tactical nuke er three in amongst the DU bombs and then claim that the EYEranians must have had a few small nukes made afterall and the DU bombing set them off. Voila, instant nookular urban renewal. Nifty cover story, too. And Bushewehr is uninhabitable fer a decade er two. No need fer one westerner to set foot there, really. The west don't want EYEran. They don't even want the EYEranian ohl and gas right now. They just don't want uh ohl bourse and they just don't want that ohl and gas bein' dumped on the market unpredictable like. In case you've fergot, thar is in my humble opinion, uh ohl glut, General Glutt, not uh ohl shortage.

Whew! What're weee gonnnna doooo, General? Ah wouldn't buy no real estate in Bushewehr, that's fer darned sure.

Do ah think they oughtta do such things as bombin' Bushewehr? No, ah don't, but then ah don't know ever thing there is tuh know about what's uh goin' on in the ohl and gas bidness neither. maybe someone is uh playin' mighty unfair. Maybe what they'ze doin' is putting the Federal Reserve driven, global central bankin' hegemony at risk. Ya don't start uh danged ohl bourse in euros unless yer fixin' tuh cut in on the action of the Federal Reserve money trusters. Still, ah just don't know. Heck, ah'm only a stinkin' corporal. But ah do know that all uh this analoguin' 'bout Munchen and Cathay makes less sense than skinny dippin' in Antarctica.

Your patriotic and dollar denominated corporal,

Eustice R. Glutt

At 4:25 AM, Blogger Epimethee said...

Oil is at 65.

Aside from the question of wether Iran really wants a nuclear bomb, really is going to have one, the impact it may have etc.

If I were president of an oil exporting country and I knew I could raise the oil price just by saying I will get the nuclear bomb, then I would be tempted to do so.

The middle east holds about 70% of the world reserve of the most needed energy source and so far this region has not been able to get any power from that. I mean the region has no unity, no decent military forces ...

Now that peak oil is coming, may be their time has come.
THe USA will have to choose :
- Move out of oil, and forget the US way of life.
- Invade the middle east completely (and risk a war is china India, russia, possibly europe)...

The one who has the control of one thing is the one who can destroy it. Iran could choose to destroy its wells if under attack, and then the western economies would suffer.

It is possible that the main cost of the iraki war may well be the loss in iraqi oil production and its impact on oil prices and oil revenues in Iraq.

At 9:25 PM, Anonymous R-Squared said...

another reason America didn't nuke China was that it would reinforce the perception that Americans only use Nuclear weapons against non-whites.

by the way, Russians wanted to nuke China in 1969, and asked for Americans' opinion. Nixon administration had Washington Star publisize (on Auguest 28) Russians' intentions. Chinese became well-prepared and Russians canceled their plan.

At 12:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>If anything, he is far more dangerous than the Nazis.

Can we start measuring hyperbole in units of "milli-Joshuas" now? Give me a break.

There are 70 million Iranians. They aren't going to let some fule launch a bomb at anybody, despite the fevered fantasies of those who wish to feel important by feeling themselves in mortal danger.

-- a different chris

At 2:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If anything is far more dangerous than Nazi's or the Iranian leadership it has to be George W. Bush and his administration. Let's do the world a favour and take out the White House with an air-strike.

At 8:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thoes crazy mexicans r blowing stuff up again leys shoot em

At 11:58 AM, Blogger Peter said...

In regards to the comparison between Nazi Germany and Iran -- the difference is that Czechoslovakia and Poland never had nuclear weapons in the 1930's, while Israel and the United States do.

At 6:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hitler thought the Arien race was superior and that killing other lesser peoples was of no consequence. They sought to rule the world. The Iranian's (Islamo-Facists) think that Islamic People are superior to all others and that killing other lesser peoples is of no consequence (assuming that they don't want to convert to the peaceful religion of Islam). They also desire a world under Islamic rule.

At 1:13 AM, Blogger mamdigs said...

this is one of the funny things
free sex pictures
free sex pics
free sex videos
free sex movies
free sex clips
free sex vids
free sex photos
free sex mpegs
free sex mpgs
free sex galleries
free sex thumbnails
free sex pix
free sex toons
free porn pictures
free porn pics
free porn videos
free porn movies
free porn clips
free porn vids
free porn photos
free porn mpegs
free porn mpgs
free porn galleries
free porn thumbnails
free porn pix
free porn toons
free adult pictures
free adult pics
free adult videos
free adult movies
free adult clips
free adult vids
free adult photos
free adult mpegs
free adult mpgs
free adult galleries
free adult thumbnails
free adult pix
free adult toons
free teen sex pictures
free teen sex pics
free teen sex videos
free teen sex movies
free teen sex clips
free teen sex vids
free teen sex photos
free teen sex mpegs
free teen sex mpgs
free teen sex galleries
free teen sex thumbnails
free teen sex pix
free teen sex toons
free asain sex pictures
free asain sex pics
free asain sex videos
free asain sex movies
free asain sex clips
free asain sex vids
free asain sex photos
free asain sex mpegs
free asain sex mpgs
free asain sex galleries
free asain sex thumbnails
free asain sex pix
free asian sex pictures
free asian sex pics
free asian sex videos
free asian sex movies
free asian sex clips
free asian sex vids
free asian sex photos
free asian sex mpegs
free asian sex mpgs
free asian sex galleries
free asian sex thumbnails
free asian sex pix
free lesbian sex pictures
free lesbian sex pics
free lesbian sex videos
free lesbian sex movies
free lesbian sex clips
free lesbian sex vids
free lesbian sex photos
free lesbian sex mpegs
free lesbian sex mpgs
free lesbian sex galleries
free lesbian sex thumbnails
free lesbian sex pix
free mature sex pictures
free mature sex pics
free mature sex videos
free mature sex movies
free mature sex clips
free mature sex vids
free mature sex photos
free mature sex mpegs
free mature sex mpgs
free mature sex galleries
free mature sex thumbnails
free mature sex pix

At 7:08 AM, Blogger Delonix Radar said...

Great Post.
Move out of the cities?!?

At 6:27 PM, Anonymous Steve said...

I'm pretty sure even if Iran gets nuclear weapons they'd be far less likely to use them than the US would.

For a number of reasons. 1) All of their substantiated threats (as in nations that wish them ill will) in the region have nukes already, and a lot more than they could possibly build.

2) There's a huge distinction between the stature that comes with HAVING nuclear weapons and USING nuclear weapons. Only the US has ever USED nuclear weapons in battle... somehow I think this indicates their hubris, even if it was logical at the time. If anything they were stupid not to nuke a lot of other nations when they were the only ones with the bomb. They didn't, so now they basically can't without starting WW3.

3) As much as you people seem hell bent on thinking anti-semitism is a more major issue than the Communist/Capitolist split was during the 60's... I'm pretty sure you misread a bit of world history. Genocide happens REGULARLY... all over the planet. The only reason the US cares about anti-semitism is it's large Jewish population. Anytime there's genocide against ethnic albanians, african muslims, kurdish muslims, cambodians, laotians, timorese, or frankly any POOR population the US doesn't give a rats ass about, nobody actually seems to care much. Why Jews matter more than any other group is sort of beyond me. Unless you actually think they're controlling the world's finances and governments in which case I guess it makes sense. I don't personally, I think it has more to do with self-absorption than anything.

The fact that Americans are ignorant to the racist views of the Chinese is rather laughable. The Chinese have no love lost for the western world. Frankly, they consider it an inferior upstart relative to their position in world history, and I don't know that I blame them. Toss in the boxer rebellion, the opium wars, the German occupation of Tsing-tao, the British occupation of Hong Kong, the American defense of Taiwan, and you're mixing up a lot of dislike probably.

Not to mention their influence on North Korea and Vietnam during BOTH of those conflicts... which apparently the majority of you are ignoring.

Either way, 1964 is an apt comparison for one reason more than any other. Iran is NOT Nazi Germany. They do not have the best trained military on the planet. They do not have a recent history of taking on the rest of the world's superpowers and coming within a few mistakes of taking over the planet. They didn't suffer through the treaty of Versailles. They don't have a leader that was elected through hooliganism, and vote rigging, who then purged his own party and all the leadership of the entire opposition before naming himself the FATHER of everyone in the nation. (Yes the Ayatollah took over via a revolution, but it was a popular one... the Shah was the guy the US supported and he didn't get a lot of love from the locals, plus he was a Sunni King put on the throne by the British - why would anyone expect that to go over well in a Shi'ite nation???).

Either way... Ignorance is Bliss. Feel free to blow things out of proportion. Just for the record at their current rate of uranium enrichment they won't have enough to make an actual bomb for years. They aren't CLOSE to having the bomb. They're just in the process of developing it. There's far scarier countries with far scarier leaders with far scarier weapons out there to worry about. Quit getting your knickers in a twist.

At 12:02 AM, Blogger admin said...

adult halloween costume ideas
adult halloween costumes
adult halloween party ideas
american apparel
ancient egyptian clothing
ancient greek clothing
baby clothing
baby halloween costumes
bathing suits
best halloween costume
bowling shirts
bridal dresses
bridesmaids dress
bridesmaid dress
camel toes and tight pants
cheap cub scout shirts
cheap halloween costumes
cheap wedding dresses
children s clothing
childrens clothing
childrens halloween costumes
clothing optional
clothing optional galleries
clothing stores
club wear
cocktail dress
colonial clothing
costumes for teens halloween
couples halloween costumes
custom t shirts
dance wear
dog apparel
dog clothing
dog halloween costumes
easy halloween costumes
easy to make halloween costumes
egyptian clothing
evening dresses
express clothing
express clothing store
flower girl dress
formal dresses
formal prom dresses
funny halloween costumes
funny shirts
funny t shirts
gap clothing
gaucho pants
girls bathing suits
girls dresses
good ideas for halloween costumes
goth clothing
gothic clothing
halloween costume
halloween costume ideas
halloween costumes
halloween ideas
halloween masks
halloween party food
halloween party ideas
hawaiian shirts
hip hop clothing
hollister clothing
home coming dresses
homemade adult halloween costume
homemade halloween costumes
indian clothing
infant halloween costumes
intimate apparel
kids clothing
kids halloween costumes
latex clothing
leather motorcycle pants
leather pants
maternity clothing
maternity wear
medieval clothing
mini dresses
mother of the bride dresses
naughty halloween costumes
old navy clothing
oscar dresses
party dresses
plastic pants
plus size clothes
plus size clothing
plus size clothing
plus size costumes
plus size dress apparel
plus size dress apparel
plus size dresses
plus size dresses
plus size halloween costumes
plus size halloween costumes
plus size lingerie
plus size models
plus size sexy lingerie
plus size swimwear
prom dresses
punk clothing
renaissance clothing
see through shirts
see thru clothing
sexy clothing
sexy dresses
sexy halloween costume
sexy halloween costumes
sheer clothing
short tight dresses
short tight dresses
sisterhood of the traveling pants
skin tight
skin tight jeans
skin tight pants
special occasion dresses
sponge bob square pants
spongebob square pants
swim suit models
swim suits
swim wear
t shirts
tee shirts
teen clothing
teen halloween costumes
textile motorcycle pants
the sisterhood of the traveling pants
tight clothes
tight clothing
tight clothing
tight dresses
tight jeans
tight panties
tight pants
tight shirt
tight shirts
tight shorts
tight skirt
tight skirts
tight sweater
toddler halloween costumes
unique halloween costume ideas
unique halloween costumes
urban clothing
vintage clothing
vintage dresses
wedding dresses
western clothing
western wear
wet shirts
wholesale clothing
wide selection of plus size clothing
women s clothing
womens clothing


Post a Comment

<< Home