As Iran Celebrates, Europe Worries

As the Iranian online media celebrates a nuclear technology breakthrough, European observers see a deepening confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the rest of the world.
The disparate reaction to news that Iran has processed a small amount of uranium for the first time illuminates the challenge facing the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) and the United Nations as they seek to ensure Iranian compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty amid news reports in Washington that the United States is contemplating military strikes.
"Iran joins the nuclear technology club," proclaims the government-sponsored Iran Daily alongside a photo of President Mahmoud Ahmadnejad clasping his hands over his head. The Mehr News emphasizes the president's claim that "Iran's nuclear technology is solely for civilian purposes," while the Islamic Republic News Agency headlines Ahmadnejad's claim that "Iran will now talk to world in a different language."

Iran's breakthrough could help resolve the international impasse over Iran's nuclear program, say two leading Iranian dailies, according to a BBC media survey
"This achievement gives Iran a good bargaining chip in its possible talks with America on the one hand and the imminent nuclear negotiations on the other hand. The possibility of a nuclear compromise between Iran and other parties has been increased," said Sharq, a reformist daily.

Mardom-Salary, a moderate newspaper in Tehran, said, "It is now the diplomats' turn to open a new horizon in the nuclear negotiations and make the best use of the short time before the possible referral of Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council... [IAEA chief Mohamed] ElBaradei's imminent trip to Tehran is the one of the latest opportunities for Iranians to find a way out of the nuclear dispute."

Two London dailies say the opposite. The Times of London sees Iran "ratcheting up" the confrontation.
Julian Borger of The Guardian says Ahmadnejad's defiance "plays into hands of US hawks," who should now have a far easier time persuading U.N. members of Iran's true intentions. Borger quotes an unnamed U.S. official: "I can't imagine anyone would be pleased by such a blatant disregard of what the council has asked for."

Russia is calling on Iran to suspend all the uranium enrichment efforts, including research, a Foreign Ministry's spokesman told the Itar-Tass news agency. The Moscow News reports that Iran has already rejected the call.

By Jefferson Morley |  April 12, 2006; 9:39 AM ET  | Category:  Europe , Mideast
Previous: Talk of Iran Strikes Gets Cool Response | Next: Russia Downplays Iran's 'Good News'


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Have you ever heard the word "implacable"? When applied to islamic fanatics it is best to be seriously concerned. Do you want to live under Islamic law? Study your history.

Posted by: ckm | April 12, 2006 10:36 AM

Right - "peaceful purposes only"... The statement coming from the same people claiming Islam is a religion of peace. I'd look up their definition of "peace", because so far it looks like "death, murder, and destruction".

Posted by: Dhimmi | April 12, 2006 10:42 AM

Don't forget two facts that have been overlooked or underemphasized in this discussion. Iran is very far away from a nuclear bomb and the Islamic atomic bomb is a bit of a dud. Pakistans best weapon which was built with extensive Chinese assistance is rated at from 5 to 20% of the Hiroshima bomb. The following link provides a full analysis of current capabilities.


"Pakistan claims to have detonated five simultaneous nuclear tests on May 28 of boosted devices made with highly enriched uranium (HEU), which Samar Mobarik Mand, head of their nuclear test program, claimed produced a total yield in the range of 40 to 45 kilotons. India disputes this, contending that the total yield of the May 28 Pakistani tests was in the range of 10 to 15 kilotons. Using seismic information, U.S. intelligence has confirmed only two nuclear explosions that day, with an estimated yield of six kilotons. Pakistan conducted an additional nuclear test on May 30. Mand claimed the yield was in the range of 15 to 18 kilotons, but U.S. intelligence estimated it was far less, on the order of one to two kilotons."

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 11:27 AM

>Do you want to live under Islamic law?

Exactly how would a nuclear Iran turn the US into a theocracy? What are they going to do, contribute more to the GOP than the Christian right?

Posted by: | April 12, 2006 11:29 AM

Let's bargain. Iran should get rid of it's nukes when Israel gets rid of it's nukes. Of the two Iran is the more peaceful and less threat to it's neighbors.

Posted by: Brian | April 12, 2006 11:39 AM

What is your point?

Posted by: To - Dan | April 12, 2006 11:50 AM

For Ckm/Dhimmi
Let me see major wars in past one 100 years:

World War 1 -- Among Christians mostly in west
World War 2 -- Among Christians/Budhists mostly in west
Korean War -- Between Christians and Budhists (or whatever their religion is)
Veitnam War -- Between Christians and Budhists (or whatever their religion is)
Iran/Iraq war -- Among Muslims
Afghan/Russia war -- Among Christians mainly sponsored by west
Iraq Crusade -- well you know who invaded who

Got the point?

Posted by: Last Few Wars | April 12, 2006 11:57 AM

I'm not going to get very upset about a nation that is going to build a nuclear capability that is easily dwarfed by Israel or the USA. From what I have seen Iran can build more destructive power by building upe their conventionally tipped missle arsenal. A one to two kiloton nuke is no better than about 30 to 40 5 ton explosives dispersed over the same area.

Posted by: dan | April 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Since the US only invades countries without nukes...then the smartest thing for Iran is to get nukes. The leadership of Iran would be neglegent in protecting their people if they didn't get nukes.

As for WWII involving Buddhist...well you don't know much about Japan or Buddhism. Japan's emperial leadership derives from a native religion called Shinto. Buddhism in Japan is extremely theologically weak.

Posted by: | April 12, 2006 12:14 PM

Some of these comments are... ludicrous and i dont mean the rapper.

1. If Israel poses such a great threat with their nukes, why havent they used them?

(hint: Israel posessing nukes keeps the arab nations neighbours at bay)

2. A nuclear armed Iran is simply not going to happen. They will be flattened first.

3. There is no negotiating with a Muslim fanatical enemy. They think America is weak and soft - preferring partying and big macs to religion - and to a certain extent they are correct. But they fail to see one thing about Americans - that America was built on war and that nothing unites Americans quicker than a new front.

I would not want to be in Iran for the next few months. It will be noisy(?)


Posted by: global domination | April 12, 2006 12:17 PM

Yo, Brian!

Not to be critical, but, "Unless your [sic] in the area, dumbass," is offensive, unnecessary, obvious, and self-centered, all at the same time.

A sense of proportion is helpful in this discussion. "It's all about me" is a great phrase for a t-shirt, not for a mind.

Posted by: billofright | April 12, 2006 12:20 PM

It will be no surprise if the US attacks Iran. The current US government relies on war, among other issues, to derive support.

Iran is not a threat to the US--unless one thinks that the US is an Israeli colony.

The Iranians have the same motive as the nuclear-armed Israelis (and Americans)--to prevent attacks.

Another war will be another debt that will be paid for (literally) by our children and grandchildren, as the Baby Boomers continue living on borrowed time and borrowed money.

Posted by: billofright | April 12, 2006 12:26 PM

Time to "wag the dog", folks!


1. the gulf of Tonkin incident(Vietnam),

2. babies being stolen by Iraqis from maternity wards in Kuwait,

3. weapons of mass destruction and biolabs in Iraq.

What next?

"Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says" -- Bloomberg, April 12.

Wag the dog! Wag the dirty dog!

Posted by: Robert Rose | April 12, 2006 01:23 PM

Nuke or Shut-up

Let's either nuke Iran or make peace. This constant tension adds at least $15 a barrel to the price of oil. This translates to over 200 billion dollars of our annual trade deficit or about 600 billion dollars since the Iraq invasion. Add the cost of the Iraq war and we are close to one trillion dollars that this adventure is costing us.

The amazing thing is this adminisration does not seem to comprehend that the very tensions it is creating in the middle east is serving to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in additional oil revenue in the hands of the very states that were culpable in financing Al Quaeda and Bin Laden.

We need a fresh approach that is more clearly aligned to our self-interests, not the dogmas in the current foreign policy.

Posted by: Oscar Mayer | April 12, 2006 01:54 PM

Why would we believe Bush this time, now that solid evidence has surfaced showing he knowingly lied about Iraq:

Posted by: Ernie | April 12, 2006 01:54 PM

While I would favor a high trade barrier against Chinese goods, I think China, along with Russia, are wise to follow a policy of engagement with Iran.
Certainly, our relations with Iran have been strained for sometime, But, with a little diplomatic effort, these differences can be resolved.
Granted the CIA overthrew an Iranian government, and Iran took our diplomats hostages during the Carter Administration. Both America and Iran have done bad things to each other. But it is time to call it even and start talking. Talk will work! The use of force would lead to disaster.

Posted by: P. J. Casey | April 12, 2006 02:19 PM

The day Iran get's enough highly enriched uranium to "fuel their reactor" is the day the leach on Hezbollah and remanants of Al Quaeda will be taken off. Watch!


Posted by: Mo | April 12, 2006 02:20 PM

Seems most of you are already faulting Bush and the US administration for the actions of Iran. How pathetic.
The US is obliged under treaty to protect Israel from any nuclear threat, it's called being "allies".
I would hate to have allies like you rubes.
Or are you of the muslim fanatical persuasion?

Posted by: TL Myers | April 12, 2006 02:23 PM

In other words. Iran want's impunity...
and it's not wise to allow them to have it.

Posted by: Mo | April 12, 2006 02:25 PM

''But they fail to see one thing about Americans - that America was built on war and that nothing unites Americans quicker than a new front.''


Brings me visions of entire legions of some sort of gross, savage, fearful, and really fat beast rushing blindly into the oblivion of a dark abyss, with nothing really meaningful to shout...

Sad, brother.

Just plain sad.

If such a vision was true, then such people would need to disappear from the face of Earth, so that the rest of us can really engage on a destiny that will bring us real peace.

Such people would be a plague upon the rest of the world, and such a plague would forcefully need to be eliminated.

Thankfully, the U.S. was actually built on much more than only war and destruction.

The U.S. was founded and built upon the best of our ideals, such as Freedom and Independence to pursue one's destiny, which are not the motivations of a political entity, but the best lights of the whole of humankind.

Most of the time the U.S. has not lived up to these ideals, and yet, the very few times it has done so, the U.S. has known its finest hour, shining light upon the world, illuminating us with those very same ideals we hold true beyond death and destruction.

And I do not think the people of the U.S. will ever want to let go of those lights.

Because if we did, then we would not be better than fat, savage brutes rushing into oblivion.

Posted by: Eldan | April 12, 2006 02:53 PM

''But they fail to see one thing about Americans - that America was built on war and that nothing unites Americans quicker than a new front.''

Actually, they DON'T fail to see it.

It is because they see it that they are trying to build nukes.

They are not trying to put bargaining chips on the table.

They KNOW Americans are tough serious when they talk about war.

They KNOW that when Americans 'talk' war, REAL WAR is sure to follow (you only need to get your history book to confirm this), therefore, they are 'talking' seriously too.

So this time, it is good that Americans remember that Iran is not Iraq, and that Iraq is going to look like a picnic compared to waging war against such proud people such as that of Iran.

Remember, this time it won't be as simple as saying 'bring it on'.

Posted by: Shaka | April 12, 2006 03:06 PM

Posted by: | April 12, 2006 03:07 PM

hey everybody....

notice that both sides are clearly not backing down. Iran knows that if it has nuclear technology the United States will not attack it (never has attacked a nuclear state as the risks are too high) so they are just going to go on building their nuclear technology.

notice also any similarities with the days before World War One? all countries involved in that wanted war.....

Posted by: RHMD | April 12, 2006 03:21 PM

Here's a great summary of Iran's perspective of the entire situation:

While I don't agree with everything the Council on Foreign Relations says or publishes, I thought this was a fantastic little interview session that had a lot of good points.

Military options are basically not a good way to go. The only way they would work is if we either invaded with ground forces or did the unimaginable and used nuclear weapons against Iran's population centers. The first option is too expensive and would probably require some form of draft to accomplish, or we would need help from our traditional allies, which means a lot more discussion, wrangling and the belief that we don't have any other choice. The other option would bring about a quick victory, but at the price of making the US a pariah state. I for one don't want to see my country reviled on the same par as Hitlerian Germany.

The only real option is to sit down and negotiate a large scale deal. I would start by cutting Ahmadinejad out of all discussions, he's a wacko using demogoguery to try and build patriotism (nationalism?) in the people. The real man to make a deal with is Khamenei. I think he's not only the brains behind the outfit, but also much more savvy and intelligent compared to Ahmadinejad. The US should offer a very generous economic package while either getting Iran to dismantle all enrichment activities, or doing some type of joint enrichment in the US. The US should agree to not actively seek regime change, but should not back down from criticizing Iran on civil rights, voter rights, personal freedom, etc. And, of course, Iran would have to stop calling the US "The Great Satan" and use our preferred name. Finally, an added bonus would be the freeing up of oil reserves that have been off limits to the United States for a long time (I know we need to change our energy policies, but this would help relieve some pressure for the time being).

Posted by: Brian (no, not the one from above) | April 12, 2006 03:24 PM

Mr. Morley,

Have you and the Post's staff ever thought of really trying to restrict some of the vitriolic and hateful language that finds it's way onto these blogs? There are at least 3 or 4 people who've posted to this topic who have no business being on here. They don't contribute to discussions and their language is only meant to incite hatred. In other words, their remarks are utterly pointless and don't belong here. I know there's the whole freedom of speech issue, but since this is a privately owned blog, the Post has the right to monitor and control the language used here, no? I just think this blog could be much more productive and insightful if the nutjobs who wander onto here were booted.

As a side note:
Maybe Mr. Crusader, Mahmood Hussain and Aslam Khan should all join hands and become members of the KKK. All three of you demonstrate intolerance on par with Nazi Skinheads and probably aren't much different personality-wise. Anyway, why don't you three try saying things in a less not-so-nice manner next time and contribute actual thought and reasoning to the discussion.

Posted by: Brian (no, not the one from above) | April 12, 2006 03:43 PM

I totally agree with Brian. Please keep your hate to yourself. I am a Muslim and I don't want any muslim to come here and bash other religion. Please be civilized in your conversation. If you can't have a civilized conversation then please don't say anything.

Posted by: Smb | April 12, 2006 04:30 PM

The usa diplomat said "blatant disregard of the council" what a joke.This UNSC should be applied to every nation .The state of israel has been ignoring UNSC time and time again and the usa invade another country with out UNSC resolution.As long as we have double standard nothing will be solved. I think Mr bush should listen to god again and hear that Iranian people dont need his "vision" and they sort their problem out themself

Posted by: Sohrab | April 12, 2006 04:40 PM

Brian (no not the other one...): I think your correct in your analysis about the sit down, however you are mistaken to disrespect Dr. Ahmadinejad. He is a very smart leader and voted popularly by Iranians, and he is very respected in Iran. So you can't ask to sit down with the Iranian people for serious discussions and disrespect their leader at the same time. Because then I would say Iranians refuse to meet with Bush, cheney and condi, bc they are all a bunch of idiots, far more than you could say about Dr. Ahmadinejad. Then who do we have the talks with???

I am very proud of Iran for this recent accomplishment, and I hope it will lead to technological advancment that Iran deserves to see today. Unfortunately, America who is controlled by Israel is always trying to hold Iran back from advancing ahead of them - this is to their own disadvantage of course but Israel does not care about USA, theyre just happy to use Americans as their slaves. It would help if Americans increased their education system so they wouldnt be so behind on world knowledge and could accurately decifer current events into meaningful conclusions rather than hasty generalizations and groupings of peoples and religions into clumps of "problems-to-solve" mentality, without ever really understanding the issues neither on the surface nor in the core.

I wish Iran expedited advancement on this nuclear matter, which is the only key to peace for them and the region.

Posted by: Katayon | April 12, 2006 05:06 PM

"Iran knows that if it has nuclear technology the United States will not attack it (never has attacked a nuclear state as the risks are too high)"

Out of pure curiosity. When has ANY country attacked a nuclear state?

Posted by: Duck | April 12, 2006 05:41 PM

Iran is an Islamic country but it's NOT an Arab country. There is no love between Iran and the Arab counries in the mid-East.
Though the Arabs of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia give lip service to their Muslim brothers in Iran they fear and hate them. These Arab states gave billions to Iraq in its war against Iran.
They have more to fear from a nuclear Iran
than the West. But just as they refuse to condem Islamic radicals, no matter how heinous their actions, they're afraid to criticize Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I guess it's too much to expect Arab leaders to show a little courage.

Posted by: marco | April 12, 2006 06:57 PM


This is very simple and clear to see by anyone with a grain of intelligence!

Once we remove all the propaganda, lies, innuendoes and baseless accusations, THERE IS NO THREAT TO ANYONE!


AMERICA as the "bully in the playground" wants to teach Iran a lesson, because they have "an image to maintain!"


Posted by: FT | April 13, 2006 07:21 AM

The idiots in the Bush administration brought this whole nuclear crisis upon themselves and the world by repeatedly threatening and demonizing Iran with ill-conceived axis-of-evil rhetoric, leaving its leadership fearful of a U.S. invasion and determined to head one off by going nuclear. Why George W. Bush, his then speechwriter David Frum, Rumsfeld, Cheney and all the other ideologue dolts in that circle felt it wise to prod and provoke Iran in this way is beyond me. You don't use rhetoric like "axis of evil" unless you're planning to go to war. Casting out provocative utterances of this sort and then doing nothing got us where we are today with Iran. Its leadership had every reason to fear a U.S. unilateral strike, and so reacted as any rational national leaders could be expected to react: they went nuclear.
One more example of how George W. Bush has bequeathed us an ever more dangerous and unstable world.

Posted by: Tony Wilson | April 13, 2006 10:17 AM

Send the warmongers to invade Iran themselves to have a taste of what they want.

Posted by: ??????? | April 13, 2006 10:46 AM

Sooner or later, the entire region will get nuclear weapons.

We Arabs have not learned from the past and from the long decades of colonialism that Europe forced on us only 30 years ago.

I don't like to have big armies or big arsenals of weapons (that ultimately kill people), so few nuclear weapons should deter any new imperialist-wannabe nation from subjecting us again.

If the most developed, the most civilized nation on earth trashed international treaties in the bin, and launched a full scale war on a sovereign nation, then we can no longer be considered safe.

One day some US government might just decide (democratically) that they have to control the oil wells themselves because it is vital to their interests and to the interests of the west.

Then what do we do?

Posted by: Karim | April 13, 2006 12:52 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, sadly enough both sides of this issue are equally valid from a mpral/legal standpoint. True enough, Iran is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and as such is required to abide by all the clauses in said treaty. However, this treaty has been broken several times, most notably by Israel, India, and Pakistan. Without even a slap on the wrist.

So I can understand if Iran is a little antsy and defensive when it comes to foreign inspectors on their soil. It might be a good idea (and I'm understating this) if Iran accepted a bit of UN oversight with good grace in the name of Peace.

On the other hand, the US has been very outspoken when it comes to Iran; using words and phrases such as "Axis-of-Evil" and "regime change". Such diction is not engendered to strike that warm, fuzzy, neighbourly feeling into the subject's heart. So I can understand if Iran would like to nuclear arm to protect itself from a possible US-led intrusion.

The best, most efficient way to stop all this constant saber-rattling would be clean and simple. And it is thus: an ideological compromise. The US agrees to give up all its ideas of "regime change", and Iran agrees to leave the US the heck alone. Much of the Founding Father's ideology is based on respecting the sovereignity of a nation and acknowledging that its internal matters are just that: internal. And much of Islam is based around forgiveness and not bothering your neighbours until they bother you.

So it seems to me, if people really wanted it, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. All they need to do is try and stop reaching for the moral high ground, and just sit down and be bloody pragmatic for a while.

Posted by: Zootsuit | April 14, 2006 01:15 AM

If we dont get all the oil form Iran, they should not get any nuks of any form period.On the subject of Israel,the fact is we can trust Israel.

Posted by: ben | April 20, 2006 01:57 PM

iran is on the right and america adopt a wrong way , but that is not possible for USA to attack on iran beacuse IRAN has in power and IRAN make many difficulties for the USA workiing forces in AFGANISTAN and IRAQ .
if IRAN stop the export of oil the world also face many difficulty in economic development .

Posted by: ANJUM SHAHZHAD | April 24, 2006 04:42 PM

If we are so wrong in thinking Iran is a threat then why is Europe so worried about Iran? Why have they reported Iran to the securiy council? It is not so much the fact of Iran having a nuclear program it is their ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalists. We are afraid of the proliferation of nuclear weapons as Iran stated they would do if we place sanctions upon Iran. Iran is afraid because they know they cannot win. They use empty threats to try and get the US and the EU and Russia and China to blink. So far it has been a stalemate but by the 28th we will see what will happen. However i think the US is still using diplomacy and not being a warmongering state some people claim we are. This threat must be taken care of because of the threat to not only the middle east but also the rest of the world.

Posted by: thinncrispy | April 26, 2006 08:58 AM

USA always did wrong becuse usa want to get the resourses from muslim countries,
in iraq there is no nuclear weapen found but usa maked propaganda against that rusbish and accupied iraq .

Posted by: rooma | May 2, 2006 01:15 PM


Why did we not find WMDs in Iraq? Is it possible he moved them to possibly his allies in Sytia where he grew up during part of his life? Is it possible that the dictator kept things from his staff? Most definately. The fact is Hussein threatened the world with WMDs so Iran wouldn't attack him. It was so nobody could kick him out from his pulpit of power. He had many facilities ready to create chemical weapons and start enrichment of uranium. It wasn't the fact that he had them we went in because he could make them (our whole premtive strike). We do not want Israel or any of our allies to suffer like the people of Iraq suffered such as the Kurds when Saddam used mustard gas. As for Iran we know they have Nuclear capability. They say they do. In our last inspections they found weapons schematics however the Iranian theocracy would not release them. Hmmm i wonder why? Also the Iranian government is just thumbing their fingers at the whole world. Iran is not getting sanctions yet because Russia and CHina two of their best trade partners do not want to lose business. It is always about money. I am afraid that if Iran gains nuclear weapons they will proliferate them to other groups such as hamas and other radical fundamentalist groups bent on killing United States soldiers and citizens and the killing of Israel. Please rooma explain why your government threatens to destroy Israel and attack the US? Please elaborate on this question as it would be nice to hear from an Iranian. I understand that most Iranians do not like the current government but the people suffer unless you stand up for yourselves and get rid of this government that is going to get many Iranians killed. Good luck as this deadline has past i hope everything works out also good luck in the World Cup but i am warning you now the US government will not back down and the UN Security COuncil will not drop the case on Iran so beware.

Posted by: thinncrispy | May 2, 2006 04:47 PM
You want to promote your goods in the net? Maybe you've already try to promote your site or goods in the net? Don't you?
Maybe you've even register yourself at forums and post your messages trying to attract clients and visitors! And much to your surprise it works!
Yes, that works! Forums are the visited sites in the internet!

Do you want to know why?

1. There are a lot of people chatting on forums - potential clients and visitors!
2. They are thematic!
3. Forums are good enough to be indexed by search systems and always have good audience!
4. They improve index quotation and amend positions in search systems.
5. Link ranging: 1000 links from forums allow the site to be on top five in the results of search systems.
6. Select audience: your every advertisement will be read by for about 25-50 people.

Try to imagine, that you can be advertise on several thousand forums!
Now it is possible! You can promote your site, goods, service several times faster due to our unique service!!!
We can send out your advertisement on thousand forums! Our mass posting on forums - your half the battle in the Internet!

After the posting all clients recieve full account about message postings on forums!

And, the story is not complete!
Try to imagine how your index quotation will rise up!
Moreover we can send out your advertisement with pseudotags, it means, that incoming links on your site could be with the words necessary to you!!!
It is a miracle, that will attract a lot of users, buyers and clients on your site!

So, what would you get, ordering mailing on forums?

1. Mass mailing on thousands of forums, in sections, where you wouldn't be deleted for flood.
We are posting only in that sections, where administrators allow to post advertisements
(For example: Advertisement, Buying, Selling, Flood, Offtopic, etc.)
2. Inflow of attendance from forums! Momentary effect guaranteed, because forums are always full of visitors!
3. Your index quotation rising and profitable position in search systems!
4. Ability to set necessary words in incoming links to your site
It means the best positioning in search systems by necessary keywords!
5. Inflow of attendance from search systems!
6. New site visitors, potential buyers and customers.

Are you still thinking?
And your business rivals aren't sleeping, they are promoting their goods!
They get visitors on the site, customers and great profit fantastical profits!

Posted by: forumpromo | August 27, 2006 09:48 AM

HYIP monitor - HYIP rating - independent HYIP monitor -

Posted by: 1hyipstats4 | September 12, 2006 11:49 PM

Thank you!
[url=]My homepage[/url] | [url=]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Gary | September 17, 2006 09:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company