Monday, June 13, 2005

Is It Good That Iraq Has Been A Disaster?

This is the kind of question I don't like asking, because it will inevitably lead many to think that I'm suggesting that it's good that innocent people--including innocent American soldiers--have died. It should go without saying that I'm asserting no such thing.

As readers of this blog know, I wanted Saddam out, and think that military action to take him out was probably warranted. Or, rather, it would have been warranted if more alternatives had been pursued first, if the action had actually been undertaken for humanitarian reasons, if the administration had been honest about its reasons, and if there had been anything like a plausible plan for post-war reconstruction.

But none of the above conditions was met. It is still possible that everything will work out for the best in the end, of course. And--again, needless to say--I hope that happens.

Funny thing about democracy is is that it's basically rule by the uninformed. Contrary to one reasonably popular belief, the common man isn't stupid; he's just woefully uninformed about politics. The average carpenter--noble though his profession might be--knows about as much about public and foreign policy as I know about carpentry. I mean, I can hammer a nail, but you don't want me building your house. Hell, I don't know that much about policy, and I'm almost a policy wonk.

It is perhaps one consequence of this that presidents are judged on the basis of the results they achieve, not on the basis of how smart their policies are--that is, not on how likely their policies were to achieve positive results. Most people don't understand the policies, and don't understand the alternatives, and so have nothing to go on but the outcome; if it's good, they conclude that the policy was good, if it's bad, they conclude the policy was, too.

It would have been a gift from the gods had W's ill-conceived Iraq adventure gone well. But gifts from the gods often carry hidden costs. My concern is that, had that happened, it would have made distortion of evidence, lying about reasons for policies, and rushing to war seem like reasonable courses of action. Or, more precisely: if things had gone well, it would have made these things easier in the future. As I've written before, there is absolutely no way that the American people are going to demand--and recognize--the truth about this war unless it goes badly in an undeniable way. Most people still have their patriotic blinders on, and those things don't come off easily.

And this is not merely (or "merely") a matter of setting the historical record straight; it's also about how America will conduct itself in the future. If this whole stupid, rotten, sordid Iraq fiasco had gone well, the long-term consequences for the country and the world might have been even worse than they will be if it goes badly. By encouraging dishonesty--intellectual and otherwise--among our leaders, painless success in Iraq might have made similar actions more likely in the future. And it is rather difficult to think of anything that would be more harmful to the nation and the world in the long run.

Note that I assert this recognizing full well that a defeat in Iraq would be devastating, a disaster of world-historical proportions. I in no way underestimate the costs of such a defeat. But such a disaster might pale in comparison to the havoc that would be wrought by an America that has decided that facts and logic are malleable things, to be bent to the will of the president, and that war is a thing that can be undertaken lightly.

It is possible, then, that the best outcome we can hope for in Iraq is a costly and painful victory. That is exactly what we seem on course to achieve. Paradoxically, such a mixed blessing may be the very best thing we can hope for.

34 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, define victory? I don't think we're on a trajectory that will result in anything remotely resembling victory. Sure, Saddam's out of power, but we've managed to create a zillion new terrorists, piss off yet another entire country of Muslims. We've showed the entire planet that we're constitutionally incapable of planning an occupation - sure we can do the easy invasion part, but that's like getting your foot in the door.

We've lost so much credibility with the entire world - from Abu Ghraib to the incredible corruption of the CPA (a billion lost here and a billion lost there, and soon you're talking about real money, eh?). We completely destroyed international relations that we're now wishing we had. For what? Where's the victory? Saddam? Give me a break.

So, again, I ask where the victory is or where it's going to be.

This was an ill considered adventure - at best. And to anyone even paying the slightest bit of attention, it was guaranteed to be an absolute disaster.

You better hope we're going to end up with a mixed blessing. 'Cause as far as I can tell, we're going to end up with a hollowed out military, no friends and the revelation that we're not nearly as studly as everyone thought we were. Not to mention the fact that now everyone knows our rhetoric on human rights is just a bunch of hot air because when it comes to push to shove we throw it off like everyone else on the planet...

Geesh. Sorry about the rant, but man, it certainly seems like you're in denial (and that isn't a river in Egypt). Seems the best we can hope for is to make it out in one piece without all holy hell breaking loose. And that's not exactly what I would characterize as victory as all those terrorists we created in the process are going to be causing untold amounts of crap.

11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Among the costs of a phenomenally successful Iraq invasion would almost certainly include the probably attempted invasions of Syria and/or Iran, which would have made the ACTUAL Iraqi clusterfuck look like the invasion of Granada.

As for the question of "human rights": considering that Saddam circa 2002 was actually a relatively mellow despot (especially compared to his actions in the 80s--carried out with U.S. support--and after the 1st Persian Gulf War--essentially carried out with U.S. permission--): we could have reduced the quantitative and qualitative suffering in the world much, much more than this war has done (frankly, I think that, totalling the costs in lives and suffering of our invasion, the deaths since, the destruction of infrastructer that continues to this day, and the toll of the insurgency, the invasion of Iraq has actually INCREASED qualitative and quantitative suffering in the world) by revising the sanctions regime on Iraq and, say, use a fraction of our not-yet-hollowed-out military to actually DO SOMETHING about the admitted genocide in Sudan.

A side note: at least, when the Clinton administration was trying to ignore Rwanda, they had the decency to try and play semantics with the word "genocide" to avoid the inevitable world-responsibility of such a word. Several members of the Bush administration have publicly called Darfur genocide, and have simply IGNORED the implications of such a phenomenon for the world community.

3:42 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

I had the same reservations about Bill Clinton intervening in the former Yugoslavia. (Pretty much the same ones that the onerous Tom DeLay had.)

A historical cesspool, unmanagable by even the people who live there and even less and worse by outside forces.

But to his credit, DeLay and the rest of the isolationists shut the hell up once we had American boots on the ground, and in harm's way, lest the bad guys come to believe that resistance isn't futile because we'll be first to quit.

That is a proper fulfillment of the role of a "loyal opposition," a concept that seems no longer operative. I admit I might have taken a perverse pleasure in Clinton screwing up, but it would have been unworthy of me as an American.

I might be influenced by the fact it's turned out pretty well, but I came around to think that I was proud of us (and Clinton) for deciding to go in. I did just read that the Turkish people think well of us for going in to save Muslims.

I must observe here that the US went in without a UN resolution, and with opposition from her NATO "friends" (read "France").

Not to make too big a bridge to Iraq here, except to note that the "Arab street" lifted not a finger in Saddam's defense or even raised a decent protest on par with those in the Western world. They knew what he was.

He was not mellow.

And Afghanistan came out very well, nitpicking aside. (Nothing is perfect.) But that success has disappeared from the public discussion.

The argument that the "people" are underinformed and have blinders on cuts both ways. It is largely accepted that Americans (and any demos) demand immediate gratification.

7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I don't remember any of the "loyal opposition" shutting up and getting with the program during Clinton's term. I guess the whole impeachment thing during our "boots on the ground" incident is your definition of "getting with the program". Hmmm. Maybe we on the left should use the right as an example... Somehow I don't think you'd take too kindly to that action and would consider it to be akin to treason. In any event, I certainly didn't complain about it back then, nor do I think it has jack to do with what actually happens in battle.

This whole imagination that the enemy is going to be super charged because some Americans are questioning the action is bizarre. As we can see in Iraq, the bigger problem isn't the truth - it's the lies. It's the complete and utter lack of any planning. It's the slavish devotion to ideology such that badly needed experts are denied participation. It's the throwing away of the Geneva conventions and the cancer of torture metastasizing throughout our military.

Oh, and Afghanistan is still ruled by warlords. They're producing opium out the yin yang and guess where that money is going - Al Qaeda. And let's not forget the place is still highly unstable (bombings, attacks just in the last couple of weeks). The Taliban is still strong and seems to actually be on the rise again.

You have a very strange idea of "came out very well".

Again, I just don't understand what parallel reality you inhabit, but it must come complete with rose colored blinders on for your viewing pleasure. Given examples of your metrics, I can see how you think Iraq will turn out to be just ducky.

Lord help us all if your held up as an example of "reason" and correct method.

12:02 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

I find it difficult to believe you were cool with the Clinton impeachment. I'm on record as saying it sucked. However, there's no indication that it affected the military situation in the Balkans.

And there was no partisanship about the intervention once boots were on the ground. (There was opposition during the initial bombing phase.)

Afghanistan and Iraq remain difficult, of course. What doesn't fit in Iraq is that the people seem to overwhelmingly desire democracy and the murderous insurgency kills a lot more Muslims than Americans. If there is any "benefit" to this, it's that militant Islam is proving itself the real enemy of all civilized and decent people, not George Bush.

Please don't read this. I don't know what the opposite of rose-colored glasses is, but it will surely foul yours. Apparently far more Iraqs think the country is on the right track than do Americans. I cannot explain this except perhaps we aren't getting the complete picture.

2:12 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Well, I don't share Anonymous's ultra-pessimistic assessment of what's going on IN Iraq--I actually think things are looking better than we ever had any right to hope. That's still bad, of course.

Re: the opportunity costs (we coulda done lots LOTS better for the world with that blood and treasure), I've written about that before and absolutely agree. Also, we've wrecked our alliances, pissed everybody off, and shattered the illusion of our own invincibility that served us so well after Gulf War Episode I. Agreed on all counts.

I disagree with tvd that conservatives got behind Clinton in TFY. They never did, to my knowledge. They fought him tooth and nail at every point. If they hadn't, he might have killed OBL before 9/11 ever happened. After "boots were on the ground" in TFY it was all over. The bombing campaign counts, it was the REAL campaign in that case, and DeLay et. al. opposed it all the way. "They don't even have any oil", DeLay said. So why worry about mass murder?

6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, I wasn't down with the impeachment, but as I said I don't think it affected our troops to any degree what so ever. The only use of this "morale" meme is to suppress debate. And might I add that there is equally NO EVIDENCE that anything we say or do here is having any effect on the military action in Iraq? I mean, really. Where's your linkage. If you're going to suppress democratic rights and freedom, you should have a damn good reason considering it's essential to how we run our country.

As to the opinion poll of the Iraqis, that's cute. What it also shows is that you don't realize the ethnic contribution of the country. Hmmm. How many are Shiites and who is in control and how does that correlate to the poll results.

But I guess having happy happy numbers outweigh the 20 or so people that seem to be killed in bombings every other day. I mean, what's 700+ killed in a single month mean to the country as long as everything is happy happy happy.

Lord. You sound just like McNamara on Vietnam. "Yes, Iraqification is proceeding as planned. We're killing more and more of the insurgents. The people are behind us 100%".

I used to wonder why humanity never really seems to learn. Now I understand.

It's all so reasonable.

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Ralston Saul's great book "Voltaire's Bastards" takes dead aim at the concept of modern "reason" and its consequences for humanity, using Robert McNamara as the ur-example of unchecked, deadly rationality. Saul's thesis essentially is that the Enlightenment value on rationality has been utterly warped and abused by the technocrats in charge of the world in the 20th Cen. that all traces of the humanistic impulse that drove the original philosophes is gone, and all that remains are monstrous decisions (from Vietnam to world trade: McNamara was head of the World Bank, remember) that have destroyed countless lives in the name of "reasoned" outcomes.



This gets to the debate about the centrality of "reason" when evaluating someone's intellectual worth.

11:47 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Whoa there, skipper. Nobody (i.e. me) is talking about suppressing your free speech. I'm asking if it's prudent to spout off so. Maybe like many on the left (as in the McNamara riff), I'm having a Vietnam flashback myself.

I am puzzled that the militant Islamists killing innocent Muslims is not seen for what it is. No, it's not all right. It is not happy happy. But what it is has nothing to do with America. The Iraqi people are trying to build a decent society, and these guys are opposed.

The mistake of Vietnam was in not offering them a chance for a decent society. Realpolitik led us to fight on behalf of a corrupt and unpopular government, a mistake I think we are not repeating in Iraq.

I suppose the facts about Kosovo are lost in the mists of time. After all, it's been five years.

4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. Using Frontpage mag to make your point is kind of like me using Jane Fonda. Talk about revisionist history... I mean, this is like basing your entire theory of history on one person's recollection and interpretation. Hardly what I would call useful and certainly highly biased and suspect. Reality is a consensus and redundantly verified affair.

Let's remember the time line of casualties vs. protests that sapped our will. I think you'll find that we had massive casualties which spawned the protests and these were well after we had effectively lost. But hey, that was then and this is now.

I'm sorry, but I do see the hot Iraqi on Iraqi action for precisely what it is. What you seem to be forgetting is that we on the antiwar side had predicted this cluster fuck would occur. And we were told that we're just a bunch o' fools because Iraq isn't anything like Afghanistan. So now we have a civil war. (As I seem to recall, the popular phrase on my side was "a steel beam under compression"). I know it's quaint to characterize us as a bunch of anti-American saps, but quite frankly the reason I was against this war wasn't because I'm so peaceful and vegan.

WRT "the mistake of Vietnam"... Man, I think you're not a very good observer/scholar of actual human behavior. You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. And let's not forget WWII where we were fighting against two imperial powers in support of two other imperial powers - democracy and a chance for a decent society was somewhere around reason #236 for why we were fighting...

Myself, I prefer Surealpolitik. The corrupt and unpopular government turned out to be the CPA and its predecessor. Or haven't you noticed that Iraq still has less electricity and more intermittently than before the war! Brilliant! We've somehow lost billions and billions to corruption (far bigger scandal than the oil for food bugaboo y'all's side keeps pushing). We're now universally reviled in the country because we had not a single plan for the occupation and worse, it was run by ideological fools who thought a free market was far, far more important than - oh - say, elections n' such.

I mean, you really, really have to work hard to do the number of stupid things these jokers have done. You have to really be blinded by ideology to completely screw the pooch in such a perfect fashion.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the metric o' victory here. Seems to me that if you can't define it, then it's really easy to pull smoke out of the air and call it victory. Myself, I had metrics before the war started. As far as I can tell, the "other side" of this argument had absolutely none going in and has consistently shifted justification and the goal posts.

As pointed out in the D^2 one minute MBA, anyone this silly deserves to be fired immediately.

I would never hire someone with such a past record and behavior for doing even simple things.

Much less leading a nation in war.

But hey, I actually have verifiable standards. Unlike - apparently - the pro war side. Y'all just seem to have the wagging finger and stern parent shtick.

Pretty darn lame.

2:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Crap. This is the link to the "Steel beam under compression". The other link is the post afterwards. Arrrgggg....

2:25 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Sorry, Mr. Anonymous, but no one can argue with a laundry list, let alone hold a discussion with one.

Argue with my weakest point if you must or if you have any guts, my strongest one.

I do generally avoid righty sources like FrontPageMag, but this was an interview with a not-unknown North Vietnamese figure.

Surrealpolitik is a clever coinage, and an apt one in your case.

(May I urge you to get a Blogger identity so we can separate you from the other anonymice hereabouts...)

5:05 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

I gotta agree with that Anonymous in many ways--NOT that Iraq is worse now that it was before, because I don't think we have the information required to make that judgment. My guess is that it's a little crappier and more dangerous, but more just, now, and with much better prospects for the future.

But the important point is that it was almost impossible to screw this up as badly as Bush & co. did

It may be better now that it was, it may (pleasepleseplease) work out for the best in the end, etc....but it didn't have to be this much of a clusterfuck. Done with even minimal competence, Iraq could be a decent place to live already and we could be heroes. Somehow these morons managed to make the question "are you better off than you were two years ago?" a tough one for Iraqis to answer.

Look, here's a little test I use for government incompetence: Could *I* have done better? If the answer is 'yes', then that pegs the incompetence meter...

7:16 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Congrats on yr new handle, Azael.

I argue here that the biggest recruiting tool for al-Qaeda was the status quo in Iraq---the watchdog US/UK military presence in the holy Saudiland, and the terrible human cost of the sanctions, which were apparently far greater than the actual war (and its aftermath).

Electricity and sewage doesn't really enter into it.

6:59 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Your arguments are strong; however, they don't address mine, especially the much greater human cost of the sanctions vs. the actual war. (Your figure of 100,000 dead is highly unreliable.)

Does the US/UK presence in Iraq create more suicidal maniacs than they did in the Muslim Holy land? Perhaps, although that's counterintuitive. But 9-11 was bin Laden's opening bell for global jihad, and it's unrealistic to believe that the movement wouldn't grow on its own after that terrifying success.

As for Iraq being a magnet for the forces of Islamic nihilism, that's certainly a fact. As one of our servicemen said, "Better here than in St. Louis."

I'm sorry your anger is reserved for Bush and not them. That's the biggest clusterfuck of all.

12:21 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

What is bizarre is being madder at Bush than the butchers. And yes, I heard you the first time.

If the "training" (which the CSM article notes is not on par with that in sovereign Afghanistan) continues in perpetuity, yes it's a grave problem. If the "insurgency" is tamed, it will have been a bump in the road. "Hundreds or thousands" of bad guys is ominous, but vague, and is by no means the only factor in the equation.

The strategy, the concept of spreading democracy, was to give Muslims a stake in their own world so that terrorists are Joe Muslim's enemy, too. We can't get them all ourselves.

Apparently there are some terrorists creeping back into Saudi Arabia. Good. Now they know who their true enemy is, and hopefully, their covert support of al-Qaeda and jihadism will wane. The core strategic problem remains when a sovereign nation gives jihadists support or even a simple blind eye.


But whatever the cost of the war and this insurgency, it pales beside the hundreds of thousands of innocents reputed to have died during the sanctions regime, not to mention by Saddam's own hand. It's not a question of intuition, but proportion.

The status quo was unacceptable and Bush and Blair chose to act. Time will prove them right or wrong. You may turn out to be right, but the fat lady has not yet sung.

3:30 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Well, there are lots of pionts here, but let's focus on one of the original ones:

Has the war in Iraq increased or decreased the number of terrorists in the world?

As Azael points out, our best evidence indicates that it has increased it.

That may be counter-intuitive, but it seems to be true. Though I don't even think it's counter-intuitive.

So on this point, Azael is just right so far as we can tell now.

7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

surprise, surprise!

11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I'm reminded of the CV that 'everyone thought Saddam' has WMD, and then when one points out contemporaneous statements(2003) by Scott Ridder, el-Baradei, or Colin Powell 4 years and a couple of months ago.

"Better here than in St. Louis."

The implication is that the jihadists would be coming through out porous borders and crashing airplanes into buildings if they weren't fighting us in Iraq.

The fact that we've managed to turn Iraq into one big testing ground for insurgent tactics against the US military is something that OBL must be laughing about in whatever cave or domicile he's living in right now.

12:36 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Ah, I plead guilty of poisoning the well, and so was "rose-colored glasses" and a bunch of other stuff. But tu quoque leads nowhere, eh?

If you feel you have a strong point that I've glossed over, I'll be happy to address it if you object. I do not desire to dodge.

So:

The Lancet 100,000 figure is an outlier. Dunno. Can't hang with Crooked Timber as backup, even though I think they're pretty cool.

The metrics you request on the sanctions are in the Reason article you posted yourself, Az (snarky remark deleted here olivebranchylike):

"It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998) and that it has, at the least, contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."

The article heavily excoriates the "loony left" for their inflation of the figures, which aided and abetted a central point in al-Qaeda's 1996 declaration of war and recruitment pitch:

"More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."


In the interest of honest inquiry, while I was doing my homework I stumbled over a correction in Reason that asserts the figure is closer to 2,000. Oh, my.

I was uncomfortable with the 500,000 figure, which is why I used words like "reputed" to characterize it. But I'm not sure Reason is right either. I was and am uncomfortable with the West's inability to refute such figures, and Madeleine Albright's stupifying non-denial turned the perception into reality as far as al-Qaeda recruitment is concerned.

She may have created as many terrorists with that one piece of brainlessness as this whole war, and that would make the putative falsity of the 500,000 figure all the more tragic.

I realize this weakens my sanctions argument, and I was almost as unaware of this argument as you were. The truth, if it is the truth, was buried in the letters section of a great (I recently subscribed) but largely unread magazine. It's hard for the polemicist and even harder for the apologist to unearth the truth.

If you're willing, Mr. Quoque, I'll drop our scorched-earth approach and see what happens. We may not change the world, but we can show what happens when disagreeing fellow Americans engage each other with a strong dose of Kantian good will.

2:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This discussion also leaves out the reasonable theory that the original terrorist act, 9/11, was at the minimum allowed to happen by this administration in order to shift public opinion here and in the West generally towards a previously planned war against Iraq. There is oh so much evidence for this, nearly everywhere you look except the mainstream media. So the idea that we're shifting the battle from St. Louis to Iraq is silly and just accepts the premise that the terrorists were independent actors. It's probably better to see them as essentially "intelligence assets." We knew them before the planes hit the buildings. Why we even found one of their passports in the rubble--not a single jet engine, but a passport, with photo i.d. Think all this is just paranoia? Read Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics." There's another story flowing along under the surface of American History. --Beel

9:30 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Um, I'm not going to be able to go with you there, B...

As for the issue of Iraqi deaths caused by sanctions: the 100k figure is the one I've heard most often, for what that's worth. I consider that to be unacceptable. That's why I advocated military action (of a type described here many times and very different from the action we actually took). Most importantly, those humanitarian reasons were not the administration's reasons for invasion. That's, in part, why this war probably isn't just.

7:13 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Ah, it was just. He broke his peace treaty and was already the mass murderer of hundreds of thousands. Absent either of those factors and a few others, no invasion.

Whether it was wise or prudent, or if the cure was worse than the disease, is legitimate grounds for debate.

9:46 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Well, Grotius is the main man here, and he says that right intention is required. So, either Bush had good intentions but lied to us about WMDs being the reason, or WMDs really were the reason and so he didn't have right intention. The G man also notes that merely being afraid that someone might attack you sometime isn't grounds for invasion, incidentally.

5:22 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

At the risk of playing the Hitler card, I'll observe that Pat Buchanan not unconvincingly made the argument that Nazi Germany posed no direct threat to the US following similar lines.

(A double Godwin because you'd not get more than a semantic whimper from me if you called Buchanan a Nazi.)

But this post is about to drop off the Philosoraptor blog table. I have some thoughts on your proposition, but if I'm to do the homework required to argue on Grotius, it'll have to be closer to the top of the pile. By this point, I imagine you and I are the only ones reading this and I prefer colluquy to monologue. I don't use you for therapy, or at least I think I don't.

Highest & warmest regards (no lie),
P-Dude

8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And A Link Back To Your Web Site Excite You?

9:36 AM  
Blogger Roberto Iza Valdés said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a wonderful invention it is, this thing we call the Internet!

3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GROW IT YOURSELF!

1:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like your blog, and will add it to "my favorites". I am new to blogging, but not new to car clubs. I have furnished custom made car badges to dozens of car clubs all over the country. I have a web site that I feel you will find both interesting and informative. Please pay me a visit when you have time.
**car clubs**car club swift

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting web site. I've found whenever you're dealing with free income money observetodo1.myeweb.net opportunity, people might sign up but do nothing. That's whats so disappointing about trying to make a living online. You work your butt off on promoting, but if you don't have a product that sells itself folks won't do jack. Ahhhhh.....the life of an internet junkie.

Good luck,
Al Fanucchi Jr
Founder of SIDEjob.com
-------------------------------------
free income money observetodo1.myeweb.net opportunityGet Paid Daily!

4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'll receive Valuable how-to Lessons, Millions and Millions of FREE Ads, and High in Demand Software Applications

7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congratulations on your nice site. I have a more web site trafficsite. It covers more web site traffic related things.

9:06 PM  
Blogger Roberto Iza Valdés said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home